Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dy. Commissioner Jodhpur And Anr vs Smt. Santosh Joshi And Anr ... on 15 February, 2024
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1322/2013
1. Deputy Commissioner, Circle-II, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Sector-11, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
2. Resident Engineer, Circle-I, Rajasthan Housing Board, Sector-
11, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Santosh Joshi wife of Shri Kailash Joshi, aged about 44
years, resident of 23-C/41, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur
(Writ Petitioner)
2. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1223/2013
1. Rajasthan Housing Board through its Chairman, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Deputy Resident Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-I, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
3. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Division-II,
Sector-4, Kudi Bhagtasni Scheme, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
Mahesh Chander Mittal of Shri Budh Ramji Mittal, R/o Housing
No.41, Third Block, Purani Abadi, Tehsil and District
Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1224/2013
1. Chairman Raj. Housing Board, Janpath Road, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur.
2. The Chief Estate manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Bikaner
Division, Bikaner.
4. Housing Engineer (sic Resident Engineer), Rajasthan Housing
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
Board, Hanumangarh Division, Hanumangar Junction.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Shri Satbir Singh, R/o 4/206, STPS
Colony, Prabhat Nagar, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary to the
Government Department of UGD, Rajasthan-Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1228/2013
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Udaipur.
4. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Shivaji Nagar,
Division Dungarpur, Dungarpur.
5. Project Engineer (Senior), Rajasthan Housing Board, House
No. 1-G-14, Shastri Nagar, Banswara.
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Preeti Gupta of Shri Harish Gupta, R/o Matra Pitra Chhayat,
C-A/5, Mahi Sarovar Nagar, Housing Board, Banswara, District
Banswara.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1229/2013
1. Rajasthan Housing Board through its Chairmna, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Udaipur.
4. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Shivaji Nagar,
Division Dungarpur, Dungarpur.
5. Project Engineer (Senior), Rajasthan Housing Board, House
No. 1-G-14, Shastri Nagar, Banswara.
----Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Gupta R/o 519, Vidyut
Nagar, Banswara, District Banswara.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1296/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board Jaipur through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur.
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Babu Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Kan Singh ji, bR/o 21/749,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1297/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Sobhagh Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Suraj Singh Chouhan, R/o B-
10, Second Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1298/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
Yudhister Gupta S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, R/o 23/123, Chopasni
Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1302/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Kumar S?o Shri Ranu Ramji, R/o 1013-Nehru Park, Railway
Colony, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1303/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Kisore Ramchandani S/o late Shri Tek Chandji, R/o 23/29,
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1333/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
Versus
Narendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Chetan Das, R/o 4-SA-5,
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1340/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Fakir Chand, R/o 23/123, Chopasni Housing
Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1341/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
Hari Om Purohit S/o Poonam Chand Purohit, R/o 5-A-43,
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1342/2013
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Section-I,
Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
----Appellant
Versus
Kapil Jain S/o Sohan Lal Jain, R/o Nayapura, Nahaton Ka bas,
Dhani Bazar, Barmer Presently residing at 893, First Floor,
Khanjanchi Niwas, 2nd D Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 328/2014
1. The Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Sector 5, Bypass Kuri Bhagtasni Scheme, Jodhpur Circle- First,
Jodhpur.
2. The Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Sub-Division
III, 1-B-119, Kuri Bhagtasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Lalita Agarwal W/o Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, R/o
Phophalio Ki Pole, Nimbia Kuwa, Jodhpur.
2. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Rajasthan Housing
Board, Jaipur, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 703/2015
1. Raj. Housing Board through its Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle-II, Jodhpur
4. Residential (sic Resident) Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Divisio-I, 1-B-119, Kuri Bhagtasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Deepak Jangid S/o Shri Lala Ram Suthar, R/o Plot No.28,
Amardeep, Shivaji Marg, Pal Road, Jodhpur Presently C/o
Mahalaxmi Udyog, S-5 III Phase, Chetan Baba ki Jhonpadi, Kher
Road, Balotra.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Tatia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
Mr. O.P. Mehta
Mr. P.R. Mehta
Dr. Harish Purohit
Mr. V.D. Gaur
Mr. Shashank Sharma
Mr. Yogendra Singh Arnay
Mr. Anil Kumar Birda
Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi
Mr. Rahul Balana for Mr. Himmat
Jagga
Mr. Bhushan Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Reportable Judgment 15/02/2024 1. Heard.
2. These appeals arise from common order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenge to the action of the appellant in cancellation of the auction proceedings towards allotment of plots to intending allottees under a scheme of the Housing Board.
3. Appellant had floated an advertisement dated 26.03.2012 initiating process of auction of the plots developed by the appellant-Housing Board for public benefits. The respondents-writ petitioners participated in the auction proceedings and offered bid prices for respective plots of their choices. The auction was concluded and as per the terms and conditions of the auction notice, the successful bidders/respondents-writ petitioners deposited 15% of the bid amount offered by them. While the successful bidders were expecting confirmation letters and (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] allotment of respective plots upon deposit of the balance amount, they came to know that the entire auction proceedings, for all the plots which were auctioned under auction notice dated 26.03.2012, have been cancelled.
4. Aggrieved of the said decision taken by the appellant- Housing Board whereby, the entire auction proceedings were cancelled, petitions were filed. Challenge to the decision of the Housing Board to cancel the auction proceedings was assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioners had submitted their offers, which were treated as highest auction in respect of the respective plots for which their offer was submitted and all those offers were invariably higher than the Minimum Sale Price ('MSP' for short) fixed by the Housing Board itself and in absence of there being any concrete reason, cancellation of the auction proceedings was arbitrary and irrational.
5. The action of the cancellation was sought to be defended by the appellants, by filing a common reply in two writ petitions, stating that even though auctions were held after determining the MSP in the year 2012 but the Chairman of the Board found that the bids received and tentatively accepted by the Board on the spot were marginally above the MSP fixed and, therefore, a decision was taken on records and files to drop the auction proceedings determining new MSP and then to go for a fresh auction.
6. The stand taken by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was rejected. The learned Single Judge held that once the intending purchasers/writ petitioners had emerged as successful bidders in respect of their respective plots and the bid price (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] offered by them was invariably higher than the MSP, there was no reason why the auction proceedings should be cancelled. It was also found on facts that 15% of the bid amount offered by respondents-writ petitioners was also accepted upon completion of the auction proceedings and thus, there was no violation of any of the terms and conditions of auction. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that once the auction proceedings are concluded and 15% advance is deposited, it amounts to acceptance of offer, giving rise to a concluded contract.
7. The writ petition was accordingly allowed by the impugned order and the appellant was directed to finalize the allotment of plots in question in favour of the writ petitioners, subject to writ petitioners depositing the balance amount.
8. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Housing Board would vehemently contend before us that the directions of the learned Single Judge to accept the bid amount of the respondents-writ petitioners, despite cancellation of bid, is grossly illegal and unsustainable in law. He would submit that it is not a case where the allotment of plots had taken place after accepting the full amount. He would submit that before the bid amount offered by the writ petitioners could be accepted by the competent authority, it came up for consideration that present are the cases where the minimum sale price would require revision and, therefore, on that basis, a decision was taken to cancel the entire auction proceedings. He would submit that it is not a case where any pick and choose was adopted by the appellant-Housing Board. Irrespective of any plot, all the plots (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] were closed and auction was cancelled. He would submit that the writ petitioners had only submitted their offer and merely because they emerged as the highest bidders and deposited 15% of the bid amount as per the auction notice, it cannot be said that any indefeasible right accrue in their favour to get the allotment. The proceedings, before it could be finalized, were cancelled for valid reasons. He would next submit that the writ petitioners have no right to get allotment, in fact they had no locus standi to file writ petitions and, therefore, the writ petitions were required to be dismissed only on this ground. He would next submit that insofar as the finding of a concluded contract is concerned, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in which, on different set of facts and circumstances, conclusion of fact has been drawn regarding that being a concluded contract case, whereas, in the present case, neither in the auction notice nor in the rule relating to auction it has been notified that deposit of 15% of the bid amount by the successful bidders would be treated as acceptance of the offer so as to give rise to a concluded contract. Lastly, he would submit that present is a case of revision of MSP. That being a subjective decision taken on administrative side, in the absence of any allegation of malafide, the same could not be subjected to scrutiny under limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he would place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. Vs. G.S. Investments and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4608/2006].
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the action of the appellant-Housing Board in cancelling the auction proceedings has no rhyme or reason and it has rightly been held to be unjust, arbitrary and irrational by the learned Single Judge. Their submission is that the Housing Board, in its reply before the learned Single Judge and even before this Court, has not come out with any material, much less relevant material, to support their decision to cancel the auction proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioners and many other persons had participated in the process of auction and the auction was under a public notice. MSP was fixed by the appellants themselves and all the writ petitioners were those who had submitted their offer more than the MSP and in many cases the bid amount offered was much higher than the MSP. In the absence of there being any reason assigned, the action is patently arbitrary, irrational and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the conclusion of it being a case of concluded contract, has been drawn by the learned Single Judge relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in identical fact situation where deposit of 15% of the money soon after a bidder being declared highest bidder, has been held to be a case of concluded contract. Learned counsel for respondents-writ petitioners have also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City And Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shishir Realty Private Limited & Ors. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 3956/3957 OF 2017].
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013]
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as also the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. At first place, we find that the auction proceedings were initiated under a public advertisement dated 26.03.2012. Under this advertisement, the appellant-Housing Board proceeded to initiate auction proceedings for allotment of plots developed by the Housing Board. It is beyond any pale of doubt that the Housing Board is an instrumentality of the State and is enjoined with the function of developing plots and allotting the same through auction or tender proceedings, which is an action in public interest. The object is to provide plots by way of a transparent process to those who are in need of house and to provide housing facility to the public at large.
12. The transparency of the process is not in question. The auction proceedings were held after inviting all the persons who are desirous of taking plots. It is also not in dispute that the Board had fixed minimum sale price in respect of offering plots/set of plots. The minimum sale price was not challenged by any of the intending bidders, either by filing any representation before the Board or challenging the same in any Court of law.
13. The case of the writ petitioners that they emerged as successful bidders in respect of their respective plots, for which they had submitted their offer, is also not substantially under challenge. It is an admitted position that, in all the cases, the bids which were offered, were invariably more than the MSP. The records also show that in many cases the offers made by the successful bidders-writ petitioners were far higher as compared to (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] the MSP. It would thus be seen that the entire process of auction was not shown to be suffering from any procedural defect of violation of any provision of law or suffering from any procedural defect of such nature which would render the auction proceedings illegal or otherwise arbitrary. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that anyone challenged the auction proceedings.
14. The records, which were considered by the learned Single Judge, reveal that the decision to cancel auction proceedings was taken by the Chairman of Rajasthan Housing Board. Para 6 of the impugned order, which extracts the relevant contents of the note- sheets, clearly records that the bids received and tentatively accepted by the Rajasthan Housing Board on the spot were only marginally above the MSP fixed and, therefore, in the office note- sheet, produced before the Court by the parties, quoted handwritten of the Chairman, was highlighted. The only operative reason recorded in the note-sheet was as below:
"u;h MSP fu/kkZj.k ds ckn iqu% fuykeh dh tk;A Sd/- Paras Ram Mordia."
15. The learned Single Judge also noted that the aforesaid note of the Chairman of Housing Board was despite the report of the Deputy Housing Commissioner that the proposal for allotment can be agreed. The complete details of the note-sheets are contained in para 7 of the order passed by learned Single Judge.
16. It is found that the Chairman and the officers had found that in some cases, bid amount received was much more than the MSP and in some cases it was marginally above the MSP. However, one (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] thing is concluded from the record of the appellants themselves that in all the cases bid amount was higher than the MSP.
17. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that in the absence of there being any other material to support the decision, the action of the appellant-Housing Board could not be termed as just and proper.
18. Having extensively heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we also do not find any material on record to justify the action of cancellation of entire bid proceedings. The note of the Chairman only shows regarding fixation of new MSP. However, why that decision was taken is completely absent from the records and files as also the reply which has been filed by the Housing Board in the writ proceedings. Present is not a case where before conclusion of the auction proceedings and acceptance of the highest bid amount and issuance of confirmation letter, some material inputs were received by the Housing Board that the MSP was wrongly fixed. It is not a case where any material has been placed before this Court that while MSP was fixed for allotment of plots, in respect of which auctions were held, in the auction proceedings of nearby plots much higher price was fetched. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that revision of MSP had become necessary.
19. Present is also not a case where any material has been placed before us that there was any serious irregularity or illegality committed in the auction proceedings which necessitated cancellation of the entire auction proceedings. As we have already noted hereinabove, it is neither the case of the Housing Board nor (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] any other material has been placed on record to show that any challenge was made to the auction proceedings by any other person.
20. Present is also not a case where a decision was taken to cancel the auction proceedings on the allegations of any corruption or nepotism. The auction proceedings were held in a transparent manner adopting the procedure which is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. If none of the aforesaid material was available, we are at complete loss as to on what basis the Chairman of the Board decided to revise MSP. In our opinion, such a decision can be only said to be completely arbitrary, irrational and based on no material.
22. While it is settled legal position that the decision itself may not be challenged on the ground of sufficiency of reasons in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Court's consideration would be confined to illegality or procedural impropriety in decision making process, in the present case, as from the facts revealed from the records, there is absolutely no basis why a decision was taken to revise MSP when the auctions were completed and part of bid amount by the successful bidders was also deposited. The auction proceedings were held as a serious exercise by the Housing Board with the object of providing developed plots to persons, who are in need for construction of their houses. Much of the energy and money is spent in the exercise of finalizing terms and conditions of the auction, issuing advertisement, inviting bids and conducting auction proceedings. As far as the applicants are concerned, they all are the persons (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] who were serious and participated in the auction proceedings so that they could get plots at the earliest, subject to they being highest bidders and fulfilling all other terms and conditions of auction and allotment of plots. Therefore, auction proceedings once held should not have been cancelled without any strong basis. In the present case, there is absolutely no basis. Present is not a case where the Housing Board has come out with certain reasons which are relevant to decision making process. Had that be so, this Court would not have interfered with the decision making process by entering into the aspects which the administration of the Housing Board alone could examine to take the decision. Present is a case where there is absolutely no material to take the decision to cancel the auction proceedings. Therefore, the action does not satisfy the test of wednesbury principle.
23. At this stage, we consider it appropriate to usefully refer to various decisions cited at the Bar in the matter of scope of judicial review against the action taken by the State in the contractual matters.
In Kumari Shri Lekha Vidyarthi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [AIR 1991 SC 537], Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below:
"xxx
21. The Preamble of the Constitution of India resolves to secure to all its citizens Justice, social, economic and political; and Equality of status and opportunity. Every State action must be aimed at achieving this goal. Part IV of the Constitution contains "Directives Principles of State Policy" which are fundamental in the governance of the country and are aimed at securing social and economic freedoms by appropriate State action which is (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] complementary to individual fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III for protection against excesses of State action, to realise the vision in the Preamble. This being the philosophy of the Constitution, can it be said that it contemplates exclusion of Article 14-non- arbitrariness which is basic to rule of law-from State actions in contractual field when all actions of the State are meant for public good and expected to be fair and just? We have no doubt that the Constitution does not envisage or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in State actions in any sphere of its activity contrary to the professed ideals in the Preamble. In our opinion, it would be alien to the Constitutional Scheme to accept the argument of exclusion of Article 14 in contractual matters. The scope and permissible grounds of judicial review in such matters and the relief which may be available are different matters but that does not justify the view of its total exclusion. This is more so when the modern trend is also to examine the unreasonableness of a term in such contracts where the bargaining power is unequal so that these are not negotiated contracts but standard form contracts between unequals.
In The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shishir Realty Private Limited & Ors. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 3956-3957 OF 2017], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below:
"xxx
28. This Court in the case of M/s Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 280 reiterated the aforesaid concerns and stated the necessity of judicial review even with respect to the commercial transactions undertaken by the State. This Court held as follows:
"10. In recent times, judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day. The traditional limitations have been vanishing and the sphere of judicial scrutiny is being expanded. State activity too is becoming fast pervasive. As the State has descended into the commercial field and giant public sector undertakings have grown up, the stake of the public exchequer is also large justifying larger social audit, judicial control and review by (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] opening of the public graze; these necessitate recording of reasons for executive actions including cases of rejection of highest offers. That very often involves large stakes and availability of reasons for actions on the record assures credibility to the action; disciplines public conduct and improves the culture of accountability. Looking for reasons in support of such action provides an opportunity for an objective review in appropriate cases both by the administrative superior and by the judicial process." (emphasis supplied)
24. The decision which has been relied upon by the appellant Board is rightly held distinguishable, on facts, by the learned Single Judge. G.S. Investments (supra) was a case where the Court, on facts, found that the bids which were offered were for the amount which were far less than the bid price, which were offered in the earlier process. Having noted that, a decision was taken to cancel the bid and in that conspectus of facts and circumstances, the Court refused to interfere with the decision to cancel the bids. The said situation is not applicable in the present case. Present is not a case where the MSP fixed has been found to be lesser than the MSP in any previous auction proceedings of the contiguous plots. On the contrary, we find that even the auctions which were held long after the auction in the present case, the bid amount could not be said to be higher than the bid which was offered in the present case by the respondents-writ petitioners.
25. Thus, viewed from any angle, there is absolutely no material basis to cancel the auction proceedings. Irrespective of whether it is a case of concluded contract or not, we are of the firm view that (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8078-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-1322/2013] the decision of the learned Single Judge that the action of the appellant-Housing Board was irrational and arbitrary, does not warrant any interference.
26. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 62-JayeshSoni/-
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:47:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)