Bombay High Court
Varniraj Group vs City Industrial And Development ... on 16 October, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:40992-DB
11732.23-wp+.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11732 OF 2023
BASAVRAJ Varniraj Group ..... Petitioner
GURAPPA
PATIL Vs.
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
PATIL
Date: 2024.10.16
14:13:27 +0530
City Industrial and Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. ..... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13836 OF 2023
M/s. Hare Krishna Enterprises ..... Petitioner
Vs.
City Industrial and Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ..... Respondent
Shri Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate a/w. Shri Sanjay Udeshi
with Shri Rahul Sanghvi and Shri Netaji Gawde i/b. M/s. Sanjay
Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner in WP/11732/2023
Shri Drupad S. Patil a/w. Shri Prasad Keluskar for the petitioner
in WP/13836/2023 and for respondent No.2 in WP/11732/2023
Shri G. S. Hegde a/w. Ms. Pinky Mohanlal Bhansali for
respondent - CIDCO, in both matters
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 14, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2024
Basavraj Page|1
::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2024 00:21:13 :::
11732.23-wp+.docx
JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Since the subject matter of both these writ petitions are
intertwined, they have been taken up and heard together and
are being decided by the common judgment and order, which is
as under.
2. For felicity, the facts from writ petition No.11732 of 2023
have been referred to and the petitioner in writ petition
No.13836 of 2023 - M/s. Hare Krishna Enterprises has been
described as respondent No.2 which has been arrayed as
respondent No.2 in writ petition No.11732 of 2022.
3. Heard Shri Arshad Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate
representing the petitioner, Shri G. S. Hegde, learned Senior
Advocate representing respondent - City and Industrial
Development Corporation - (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent - Corporation) and Shri Drupad S. Patil, learned
Counsel representing respondent No.2 - M/s. Hare Krishna
Enterprises.
(A) Challenge:
4. By instituting writ petition No. 11732 of 2023 under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, which is a
Basavraj Page|2
11732.23-wp+.docx
partnership firm, has assailed the validity of the action on the
part of the respondent - Corporation in cancelling the
petitioner's bid, which was the highest, for lease of Plot No.14,
Sector 9E, Kalamboli Node, Scheme No.MM/SCH-24/2021-2022.
Initially, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 18 th May
2023 passed by the Marketing Manager (Commercial) of the
respondent - Corporation whereby the representation made by
the petitioner against the order dated 25 th July 2022 cancelling
the bid offered by the petitioner, was rejected. We may note at
this juncture itself that the order dated 18 th May 2023 on the
representations preferred by the petitioner was passed in
compliance of an order dated 22nd December 2022 passed by
this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, viz.
writ petition No.9977 of 2022.
5. Subsequent to the filing of the instant writ petition, by
amendment the petitioner also challenged the order dated 25 th
July 2022 whereby the decision of the respondent - Corporation
cancelling the bid offered by the petitioner was communicated to
it stating therein that the respondent - Corporation had decided
to cancel the bid in respect of the subject plot due to
administrative reasons. The petitioner also challenged the order
Basavraj Page|3
11732.23-wp+.docx
dated 17th October 2023 whereby the order of rejection of bid
dated 25th July 2022 and the cancellation letter dated 18 th May
2023 issued by the Marketing Commercial Department of
respondent - Corporation regarding the subject plot was
affirmed by the Vice Chairman & Managing Director of
respondent - Corporation.
(B) Facts of the case:
6. The respondent - Corporation issued an advertisement for
grant of lease in respect of 20 residential-cum-commercial use
of plots at Ghansoli, Vashi, Nerul, New Panvel (E), New Panvel
(W), and Kalamboli Nodes in Navi Mumbai through e-tender
process. The petitioner firm, accordingly, in pursuance of the
said advertisement submitted its bid for lease of the subject plot.
The petitioner's bid of Rs.68,899/- per square meter was found
to be the highest. It is also to be noticed that the base rate for
the plot in question was Rs.39,303/- per square meter. These
facts are apparent from auction result enclosed at page No.93
appended as Exhibit-C to the writ petition. It is also to be
noticed that respondent No.2 had not participated in the e-
auction process pursuant to the advertisement.
Basavraj Page|4
11732.23-wp+.docx
7. Vide letter dated 25th July 2022 a communication by the
Marketing Manager (Commercial) of respondent - Corporation
was made to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was apprised
of the decision of the respondent - Corporation that it had
cancelled the bid submitted by the petitioner in respect of the
subject plot. It was also communicated to the petitioner by the
said letter dated 25th July 2022 that earnest money deposit paid
by the petitioner was being refunded in its bank account. The
earnest money deposit was, thus, returned to the petitioner on
18th August 2022.
8. After issuing the rejection letter dated 25 th July 2022 the
subject plot was re-advertised on 15 th August 2022 with the base
rate of Rs.57,895/- per square meter. In the said re-advertised
bid process the petitioner did not participate, however,
respondent No.2 participated and the auction result of the
subsequent bid was declared on 25th October 2022 whereby the
bid submitted by respondent No.2 @ 92,995/- per square meter
was declared to be the highest. The said bid result, which is
available at page 157 of the writ petition as Exhibit-L, also
reveals that the base price of the plot in question in the
subsequent bid was Rs.57,895/- per square meter.
Basavraj Page|5
11732.23-wp+.docx
9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by re-auction of the subject
plot, instituted writ petition No. 9977 of 2022 wherein an interim
order was passed on 7th September 2022 by a coordinate bench
of this Court that till the next date the respondent shall not
finalize the bid for the subject plot. It is to be noticed that writ
petition No.9977 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner subsequent
to the second advertisement wherein the bid submitted by
respondent No.2 was found to be the highest. As already stated
above, the bids submitted pursuant to the subsequent
advertisement were opened on 25th October 2022 whereby
respondent No.2 was declared to be the highest bidder.
10. Writ petition No.9977 of 2022 was finally disposed of by
this Court by means of the order dated 22nd December 2022
providing therein that the petitioner may file representation/
application with the Managing Director/ Competent authority and
if such a representation/ application is filed the Managing
Director/ Competent authority of the respondent - Corporation
shall consider the same and take decision according to its own
merits and according to law/policy. It was further provided by
this Court while disposing of writ petition No.9977 of 2022 by
Basavraj Page|6
11732.23-wp+.docx
means of order dated 22nd December 2022 that till decision is
taken by the Managing Director/Competent authority, further
proceedings regarding allotment of the subject land shall not be
undertaken. The Court also provided that depending on the
decision to be taken by the Managing Director/Competent
authority, further steps shall be taken and in case the decision of
the Managing Director/Competent authority goes against the
petitioner, the said decision shall not be implemented for a
period of two weeks.
11. The petitioner, accordingly, in pursuance of the order dated
22nd December 2022 passed by this Court, preferred a
representation to the competent authority of the respondent -
Corporation on 26th December 2022. On 9th February 2023
hearing on the representation preferred by the petitioner
pursuant to the order dated 22 nd December 2022 passed by this
Court was postponed on an objection raised by the petitioner
that the matter cannot be heard as Shri Gajendra Jangam
Marketing Manager (Commercial) was a part of the competent
authority and it was he, who had filed affidavit on behalf of the
Corporation in writ petition No.9977 of 2022.
Basavraj Page|7
11732.23-wp+.docx
12. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 18th
May 2023, the representation preferred by the petitioner
pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 22 nd December 2022
was rejected and the impugned rejection letter dated 25 th July
2022 was affirmed.
13. A writ petition bearing No.6475 of 2023 was filed by one
TVP Ventures LLP before this Court in which an order was passed
on 26th May 2023 based on the statement made by the learned
Counsel representing the respondent - Corporation that the
decision impugned in the said writ petition shall not be
implemented.
14. The petitioner, thereafter instituted the instant writ
petition, initially challenging the impugned rejection letter dated
18th May 2023. On filing of the instant writ petition, a notice was
issued to the petitioner by the Marketing Manager (Commercial),
of respondent - Corporation on 11 th October 2023 requiring the
petitioner to be present before the authority concerned on 16 th
October 2023 to represent its case. The petitioner, accordingly,
submitted its representation once again to the respondent -
Corporation vide application dated 16th October 2023 in which
Basavraj Page|8
11732.23-wp+.docx
apart from taking the earlier pleas, the petitioner also stated
that even though the bid offered by the petitioner in the earlier
tender process of Rs.68,899/- per square meter was in
accordance with law, however, the petitioner was also interested
and was ready to match the price of Rs.92,995/- per square
meter as offered by respondent No.2 in the subsequent bid
process.
15. We may notice that prior to the representation dated 16 th
October 2023 the petitioner never expressed its desire to match
the price offered by respondent No.2 in the subsequent bid in
respect of the subject plot.
16. Considering the representation made by the petitioner,
dated 16th October 2023, the Vice Chairman & Managing Director
of respondent - Corporation passed an order on 17 th October
2023 whereby it was concluded that the respondent -
Corporation was under obligation to protect public money and to
get the best price for disposal of the public lands vested in it. It
was also observed in the said order dated 17 th October 2023 that
the respondent - Corporation was required to take into
consideration commercial aspect of the matter as well and,
Basavraj Page|9
11732.23-wp+.docx
therefore, it was obligatory on its part to get the best price from
disposal of lands which are required to be utilized for
development of New Mumbai. The Vice Chairman & Managing
Director, while passing the order dated 17th October 2023 also
stated that it was well within the right of the Corporation to
ascertain and decide whether the rates offered by the highest
bidder ought to be considered and as to whether the bid should
be proceeded with or discharged/cancelled. The Managing
Director, thus, has observed in the said order dated 17 th October
2023 that since in the second bid the Corporation had received
better rate for the subject plot, as such, the rejection letter
dated 25th July 2022 and cancellation letter dated 18th May 2023
issued by the Marketing Manager (Commercial) of the
respondent - Corporation regarding the subject plot was re-
affirmed.
17. On passing of the impugned order dated 17 th October 2023,
the petitioner, by way of an amendment in the writ petition, also
challenged the orders dated 25th July 2022 and 17th October
2023.
18. So far as writ petition No.13836 of 2023 is concerned, the
Basavraj Page|10
11732.23-wp+.docx
said writ petition has been filed by respondent No.2 - M/s. Hare
Krishna Enterprises, whereby a prayer has been made for issuing
a writ of mandamus to the respondent Corporation to issue
allotment letter in respect of the subject plot on the basis of the
subsequent auction wherein bid submitted by respondent No.2
@ Rs.92,995/- was found to be the highest.
(C) Contentions of Shri Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate
representing the petitioner :
19. Shri Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the
reasons given by the respondent - Corporation, while rejecting
the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the first auction,
are not relevant and are absolutely arbitrary and further that in
any case once the petitioner has offered the bid of Rs.92,995/-
per square meter for the subject plot which matches the bid of
respondent No.2 in the subsequent bid process, the subject plot
ought to be allotted in favour of the petitioner.
20. He has also argued that the base price in first bid in
respect of the subject plot was Rs.39,303 per square meter
whereas the petitioner had offered Rs.68,899/- which is almost
double the base price and the petitioner, being the highest
Basavraj Page|11
11732.23-wp+.docx
bidder, there was no sustainable reason to reject the bid offered
by it. It is his further submission that though the subsequent bid
in which respondent No.2 is the highest bidder having offered bid
of Rs.92,995/- per square meter, has not been acted upon on
account of interim orders passed by this Court from time to time,
the bid offered by respondent No.2 has not been accepted and
since the petitioner itself has offered the matching price of
Rs.92,995/- per square meter, as such, it is incumbent on behalf
of the respondent - Corporation to accept the bid offered by the
petitioner in the first bid process or to accept the subsequent
offer of the petitioner matching the bid price offered by the
respondent No.2 in subsequent bid process, and to settle the
lease in its favour.
(D) Submission on behalf of the respondent -
Corporation :
21. Shri Hegde, learned Senior Advocate, representing the
respondent - Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that in
view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shree
Ganesh Enterprises Vs. The City and Industrial
Development Corporation & Ors.1, the commercial aspect of
Judgment dated 23rd July 2024 - writ petition No.15807 of 2022
Basavraj Page|12
11732.23-wp+.docx
the matter cannot be ignored and while rejecting the bid offered
by the petitioner, sufficient and sustainable reasons have been
given and accordingly, the writ petition is highly misconceived.
22. Arguing further, Shri Hegde has stated that once the bid
submitted by the petitioner in respect of the subject plot in the
first bid process was found to be the highest, the matter was
considered and all the relevant aspects were taken into account
including a report dated 8 th June 2022, submitted by an expert
valuer, viz. Knight Frank and it is only thereafter that the
impugned decision has been taken. He has stated that the report
of the valuer depicted that the market potential of the plot in
question was in the range of Rs.71,638/- to Rs.1,00,067/- per
square meter and accordingly, having regard to the commercial
aspect of the matter, the bid submitted by the petitioner was not
accepted and the subject plot was put to re-auction in which the
bid submitted by respondent No.2 @ Rs.92,995/- per square
meter has been found to be highest and thus, the lease in
respect of the subject plot needs to be settled in favour of
respondent No.2 and not in favour of the petitioner.
Basavraj Page|13
11732.23-wp+.docx
23. It has further been submitted by Shri Hegde that accepting
the matching offer made by the petitioner would not be
appropriate for the reason that it may undermine the sanctity of
the bid process and further that the petitioner has not
participated in the subsequent bid. He has also argued that in
case such a course is adopted by the respondent - Corporation,
it will be an unending process and various other bidders will start
making offers of matching bids equivalent to the bid offered by
the highest bidder and hence, it will not be appropriate to accept
the matching bid of the petitioner. He has also argued that by
not participating in the subsequent bid, the petitioner cannot be
settled with the lease in relation to the subject plot as the
petitioner is a fence sitter and any offer, made by the fence
sitter, cannot be accepted. Shri Hegde has also argued that the
petitioner offered the matching bid for the first time only while
making the representation dated 16th October 2023 and not
before that and hence, accepting such an offer would amount to
encouraging unfair practices which a public authority is not
expected to indulge in. On these counts, the writ petition has
vehemently been opposed by Shri Hegde.
Basavraj Page|14
11732.23-wp+.docx
(E) Arguments on behalf of respondent No.2:
24. Shri Drupad Patil, representing the respondent No.2 in writ
petition No.11732 of 2023 (petitioner in writ petition No.13836
of 2023) has, while adopting the submissions made by Shri
Hegde, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent -
Corporation, stated that in the first representation preferred by
the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22 nd
December 2022, no offer matching the bid submitted by
respondent No.2 was made by the petitioner and any such
subsequent offer, thus, cannot be accepted.
(F) Submissions in rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner :
25. Shri Shaikh, learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioner, in rejoinder, has submitted that in the facts of the
case, the judgment of this Court in the case of Shree Ganesh
Enterprises (supra) has no application. He has stated that in
Shree Ganesh Enterprises (supra) no matching offer was
made by the party who had succeeded in the first bid and
accordingly, once an offer has been made by the petitioner
matching the highest bid submitted by the respondent in the
subsequent bid, in case the petitioner's bid is accepted and lease
is settled in its favour, the respondent Corporation will not
Basavraj Page|15
11732.23-wp+.docx
suffer any pecuniary loss and accordingly in the fact situation, of
this case, the plea raised on behalf of the respondent -
Corporation regarding commercial aspect of the matter will not
be tenable.
(G) Discussion:
26. Having regard to the pleadings of the respective parties
and the submissions made by learned Counsel representing
them, two aspects of the matter emerge, which need
consideration and decision by this Court. The first aspect is as to
whether the reason given by the respondent - Corporation while
cancelling the bid submitted by the petitioner in the first round
of bidding process, though the petitioner was the highest bidder,
is tenable. The second aspect in the facts of the case which
arises for our consideration is as to whether keeping in view the
offer made by the petitioner matching the highest bid submitted
by respondent No.2 in the subsequent bid, will it be appropriate
for the Corporation to accept the matching bid offered by the
petitioner and settle the lease rights in its favour.
27. So far as the first aspect of the matter is concerned, the
reason given by the respondent - Corporation in not accepting
Basavraj Page|16
11732.23-wp+.docx
the highest bid submitted by the petitioner is that the expert
valuer in its report dated 8th June 2022 had opined that the
market potential of the subject plot is within the range of
Rs.71,638/- per square meter to Rs.1,00,067/- per square
meter and since the offer made by the petitioner in the first
round of bid is less than the market potential as depicted in the
report submitted by the expert valuer, it is not necessary for the
Corporation to have accepted the highest bid offered by the
petitioner keeping in view the commercial aspect of the matter.
The law in this regard is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. MB
Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors.2 which has been
followed by this Court in Shree Ganesh Enterprises (supra).
Paragraph 136 to 138 of the judgment in the case of Jaipur
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereunder:
136. In any case, we find that the High Court was not justified in
issuing the mandamus in the nature which it has issued. This Court in
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [Air India Ltd. v.
Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 : 2000 INSC 39]
has observed thus : (SCC pp. 623-24, para 7)
""7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and
agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of
this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer Corpn.
Kamgar Union v. Union of India [Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
2024 SCC OnLine SC 26
Basavraj Page|17
11732.23-wp+.docx
v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568] , CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.
[CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260] , Tata Cellular v.
Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
651 : 1994 INSC 283] , Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of
Maharashtra [Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra,
(1997) 1 SCC 134] and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd. [Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R.
Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492] The award of a contract,
whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State,
is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a
commercial decision considerations which are paramount are
commercial considerations. The State can choose its own
method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of
invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It
can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one
of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole
criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any
relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit
such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it
happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to
adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by
them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that
decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can
examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found
vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The
State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the
public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect
is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise
its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and
should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not
merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should
always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide
whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes
to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires
interference, the court should intervene."
137. It could thus be seen that this Court in Air India case [Air India
Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 : 2000
INSC 39] has held that the award of a contract, whether it is by a
private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision,
considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. It
has been held that the State can choose its own method to arrive at a
decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not
open to judicial scrutiny. It has further been held that the State can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the
offers made to it. It has further been held that, price need not always
be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It has been held that the
State may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the
Basavraj Page|18
11732.23-wp+.docx
highest or the lowest. However, the State, its corporations,
instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms,
standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from
them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial
review, the Court can examine the decision-making process and
interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and
arbitrariness. It has further been held that even when some defect
has been found in the decision-making process, the Court must
exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution
and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not
merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always
keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its
intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion
that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court
should intervene.
138. As has been held by this Court in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : 1994 INSC 283] , the Court is not
only concerned with the merits of the decision but also with the
decision-making process. Unless the Court finds that the decision-
making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, it
will not be permissible for the Court to interfere with the same."
28. Thus, it is well settled by now that the State, its
instrumentalities or agencies are bound to adhere to the norms,
standards and procedures laid down by them and they cannot be
permitted to depart from such norms, arbitrarily. However, in
the same breath, it can also be observed, as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
(supra), that the award of contract, whether it is by a private
party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision,
considerations which are paramount are commercial
considerations. In Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the State can
Basavraj Page|19
11732.23-wp+.docx
choose its own method to arrive at a decision and that the State
may not accept the offer, though it is the highest or the lowest.
It is further to be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in
Aditya Enterprises Vs. City Industrial and Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.3 has in paragraph 24 held
that no rights are created in favour of any party merely for the
reason that the party is the highest bidder in the tender process.
Paragraph 24 of the report in Aditya Enterprises (supra) is
also extracted hereinbelow:
"24. We therefore hold that no right is created in favour of
petitioners to have plots allotted to them by CIDCO by mere reason of
they being the highest bidders in the tender process."
29. Therefore, having regard to the settled legal position, as
discussed above, the commercial considerations of the
respondent - Corporation cannot be lost sight of while
considering the pleas raised by the petitioner in the instant case.
If the market potential as per the report submitted by an expert,
of the subject plot ranges between Rs.71,638/- to 1,00,067/-
per square meter, the commercial considerations underneath the
decision to be taken by the respondent - Corporation as to
whether the bid offered by the petitioner to be accepted or not,
2023(3) Bom. C.R. 856
Basavraj Page|20
11732.23-wp+.docx
cannot be ignored.
30. As already discussed above, merely because a party is the
highest bidder, it cannot be said that any right stands vested in
such a party for acceptance of the highest bid offered by it. For
reasonable considerations even the highest bid can be refused.
When we analyze the facts of the instant case and the pleas
raised by the petitioner on the touchstone of the aforementioned
legal position, what we find is that the reason given by the
respondent - Corporation in not accepting the highest bid
offered by the petitioner in the first round of bid cannot be said
to be irrelevant or unreasonable. The commercial aspect of the
matter is a guiding factor for the respondent - Corporation to
arrive at a just and proper decision.
31. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the reasons given by
the respondent - Corporation while rejecting the bid offered by
the petitioner in the first round of bidding process are not
tenable; rather the reasons given are acceptable and admissible
in law.
32. The second aspect, as argued by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the commercial consideration or the
Basavraj Page|21
11732.23-wp+.docx
commercial interest of the respondent- Corporation does not
come in the way of acceptance of the bid offered by the
petitioner matching the highest bid submitted by respondent
No.2 in the subsequent bid process, in our opinion, is also not
acceptable for the reason that if such a course is permitted, the
same would be a dent to the fairness and sanctity of the bid
process. Accepting the bid submitted by the petitioner which
matches the highest bid submitted by respondent No.2 in the
subsequent bid will be inappropriate for another reason, and the
reason is that the petitioner chose not to participate in the
subsequent bid process. We are also of the opinion that in case
such a course is allowed, it may result in unending process of
offers being made by various parties though such parties may
not have participated in the bid process. It is to be seen that the
petitioner did not participate in the subsequent bid process and if
in the opinion of the respondent-Corporation the bid submitted
by respondent No.2 is commercially viable, there is no reason
why the bid offered by respondent No.2 in the subsequent bid
process may not be accepted and the petitioner's matching bid
may be accepted.
Basavraj Page|22
11732.23-wp+.docx
33. We are further of the opinion that even if the petitioner
offers a higher bid than the bid price offered in the subsequent
bid, the same cannot be accepted for such a course would be
against the doctrine of fairness to be observed by a public
authority in the bidding process. The petitioner, in paragraph 11
of the rejoinder affidavit filed to the affidavit in reply on behalf of
respondent No.2 has stated that it is ready to offer the bid of
Rs.1,09,503/- per square meter which is higher than the bid
offered by respondent No.2 and equivalent to the highest base
rate of the plots in the vicinity. Such an offer, at this juncture,
in our opinion, cannot be accepted as the same would again
dilute the sanctity of the bid process and will be opposed to the
principle of fairness which a public authority, in law, is excepted
to observe.
(H) CONCLUSION:
34. For the discussion made and the reasons given above, in
our opinion, the writ petition No.11732 of 2023 is highly
misconceived, which, resultantly, is hereby dismissed.
35. We also direct that the respondent - Corporation shall take
a decision in respect of the bid submitted by respondent No.2 -
Basavraj Page|23
11732.23-wp+.docx
M/s. Hare Krishna Enterprises (petitioner in writ petition
No.13836 of 2023) pertaining to subject plot in accordance with
law, rules and extant circulars with expedition, say within a
period of four weeks from the date a copy of this judgment and
order is produced before the authority concerned. Writ petition
No.13836 of 2023 stands disposed of in these terms.
36. There will be no order as to costs.
37. Interim Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj Page|24
