Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 November, 2017
Bench: Bharati Sapru, Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED ON 21.08.2017
DELIVERED ON 09.11.2017
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29130 of 2014
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Sahu,Piyush Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anoop Trivedi
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 01.02.2012 and 14.09.2012 passed by the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Kanpur Development Authority to allot Plot No. 85, Govind Nagar, District Kanpur in favour of the petitioner.
2. The facts as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Kanpur Development Authority had published an auction notice on 25.12.2011 in "Amar Ujala" a daily newspaper for allotment of plots in residential areas.
3. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner deposited registration fee and requested for allotment of plot No. L-85, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and a proposal was also prepared for allotment of the said plot to the petitioner. On 01.02.2012 the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, the Respondent No. 2 herein, rejected the allotment. But the petitioner was not informed. Unaware of the order dated 01.02.2012 that had already been passed, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 10424 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 28.02.2012 with a direction that petitioner's representation be considered and decided by the Respondent No. 2.
4. The Respondent No. 2 thereafter has rejected the representation on 14.09.2012. This writ petition has, therefore, been filed challenging the orders dated 01.02.2012 and 14.09.2012.
5. It has been submitted that petitioner's bid was the highest in auction. The auction notice dated 25.12.2011 had fixed Rs.9,522/- per sq. fit as reserved price of plot in question and the petitioner had proposed Rs.11,200/- per sq. fit in his bid. His being the highest bid, the petitioner had also deposited Rs.4,83,000/- on 12.01.2012 but by the impugned orders the auction itself for allotment of Plot No. L-85, Govind Nagar, Kanpur has been cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. Shri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate, has appeared for Kanpur Development Authority and he has relied upon his counter affidavit wherein it has been averred that in the brochure it has been stipulated that the power to accept or reject a bid would vest in the Vice Chairman of the Kanpur Development Authority and his decision would be final. After the auction was completed the Auction Committee while analyzing the bids had found that two persons - Petitioner and one another had colluded amongst themselves and both these bidders were related to each other and only two bids were filed for Plot No. L-85 with a difference of only Rs. 100/- per sq. fit. No other person had bid for the Plot No. L-85 and the two bids being found collusive and non-competitive, the Respondent No. 2 had cancelled the auction with respect to Plot No. L-85 and it was proposed to re-auction the same. This decision was duly communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 29.02.2012 written by Tehsildar, Kanpur Development Authority, Zone - 3, Kanpur. Detailed reasons have also been given by the Respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner in his order dated 14.09.2012.
7. We have perused the impugned order and we find that reasons have been given in detail therein. Moreover, this Court is aware that the rights of the highest bidders are governed by the Statutory Rules, if any, and the conditions of auction. The brochure issued by the Kanpur Development Authority had clearly stipulated that the Authority was not bound to accept the highest bid tendered. The Authority having reserved its right to reject even the highest bid and also the right to withdraw the plot itself from the auction in spite of the highest bid, no right accrues to the highest bidder. Acceptance and confirmation of the highest bid by the Auction Committee having not been done, it cannot be said that any right accrues to the petitioner warranting interference by this Court to issue a mandate to force the authority to sell the plot in question to the petitioner even if the price bid by him has been found non-competative by the Authority.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Kant and others Vs. Satyawan and others, 1996 SCC (4) 208 has found that the conditions of auction are mentioned in the tender document. The bidder participating in an auction on the basis of such conditions cannot question the same on the ground that it was not open to the Authorities to prescribe such conditions. On the contrary, the principle of acquiescence and estopple would prevent them from doing so. It would not be open to a participant to the auction proceeding to question the conditions at a later stage or as an afterthought.
9. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon again in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma: 2013 (5) SCC 182 wherein the Supreme Court has considered several earlier precedents and come to the conclusion that bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equal and fair treatment. No contract comes into existence merely by submission of the highest bid until it is accepted. Mere deposit of 20 per cent or part payment of the bid amount by the highest bidder at the fall of the hammer does not amount to acceptance of the bid. Communication of acceptance of the highest bid is necessary for concluding the contract and it cannot be said that the auction process has been finalised until a contract follows it.
10. In view of the facts as mentioned in the impugned order and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court we are of the considered opinion that merely because petitioner's bid was the highest and above the reserved price fixed by the Respondent No. 2, it cannot be said that any right accrued to the petitioner to entail a Mandamus to be issued by this Court.
11. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date:- 09.11.2017
LBY
