Delhi High Court
Nitin Kumar Garg vs Delhi Development Authority on 5 July, 2019
$~7, 13, 14 and 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 05.07.2019
+ W.P.(C) 6842/2019 and C.M. Appl. No. 28545/2019 (for stay)
NITIN KUMAR GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lovish Sharma and Mr. Gobind
Malhotra, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma and Ms. Asiya
Khan, Advocates for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 6818/2019
ROMI GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sarthak Bhatia and Mr. Sanil
Garg, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma and Ms. Asiya
Khan, Advocates for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 6836/2019 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 28534/19 (for interim
relief) 28535/2019 (for exemption)
MEENU JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH
ITS VICE CHAIRMAN VIKAS SADAN ..... Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 6842/2019, 6818/2019, 6836/2019 & 6981/2019 Page 1 of 8
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma and Ms. Asiya
Khan, Advocates for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 6981/2019 and C.M. Appl. No. 29041/2019 (for stay)
PATIALA KASHMIR ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Niloy Das Gupta and Mr. Arun
Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, SC for DDA with
Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. All these four writ petitions involve similar facts and almost identical
issues have been raised and, therefore, they being disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. Three writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 6818/2019, 6842/2019 and
6836/2019 relate to e-auction by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of
certain residential plots. The plot numbers, which are subject matter of each
writ petition, are being detailed herein below:-
Srl. No. W.P.(C) Nos. Auction Auction No. of Total Reserve H1 Bid (Rs) H1 Bidder
Sub Item Description of Bidders No. of Price (rs)
Work Bids
1 W.P.(C) Sl No. Rohini Sec-7 1 1 11254848 11304848 Meenu
6836/2019 100 Plot Block E-4 Jain
Blk E-4
2 W.P.(C) Sl No. Rohini Sec-7 1 1 5804026 5854026 Nitin
6842/2019 118 Plot Block E-4 Kumar
Blk E-4
3 W.P.(C) Sl No. Plot No. 47 C- 4 8 1472640 1872640 Shilpee
6818/2019 248 Plot 4 Block New Kumari
No. 47 Kondli
Blk C-4
4 W.P.(C) Sl No. Plot No. 52 C- 3 1 1472640 1522640 Romi
6818/2019 253 Plot 4 Block New Gupta
No. 52 Kondli
Blk C-4
5 W.P.(C) Sl No. Plot No. 47 C- 5 29 1472640 2922640 SUSHIL
6818/2019 316 Plot 5 Block New KUMAR
No. 47 Kondli GIRI
Blk C-5
6 W.P.(C) Sl No. Plot No. 52 C- 5 15 1472640 2222640 Akash
6818/2019 321 Plot 5 Block New Gupta
No. 52 Kondli
Blk C-5
3. Writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 6981/2019, relates to e-auction by
the DDA of a commercial plot bears no.BT-5/255 Mangolpuri Industrial
Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, held on 15th April, 2019 with the reserve price of
Rs.4,20,48,000/-. The petitioner had deposited earnest money amounting to
Rs.21,02,459/- on 20th April, 2019. The respondent DDA had informed the
petitioner vide e-mail dated 27.4.2019 that the e-auction had ended on
26.4.2019 and the bid of the petitioner was the highest. However, later the
EMD was refunded directly into the bank account of the petitioner on
6.6.2019, without assigning any reason.
4. The common facts that emerge in these writ petitions are that the DDA
issued a notice for e-auction of plots on 9.3.2019. The Brochure was
uploaded on 1.4.2019. The petitioners submitted their bid documents, along
with Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) on different dates. E-auction was held
on 24.4.2019/26.4.2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6818/2019 received
a mail informing him that he has emerged as the highest bidder in the auction
process. Similar intimations were also received by the petitioners in the
other writ petitions. The common grievance of the petitioners is that they
learnt subsequently that their bids have been cancelled.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that since the
petitioners were single bidders and in the opinion of the Competent
Authority, the plots in question could fetch a much greater value. It is
submitted that this was subsequently established from the fact that when all
these plots were re-auctioned far higher bids were received. Mr. Sharma has
handed over a chart/tabulation in Court in support of his submission, which
we have taken on record.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the bid document
nowhere states that in case of a single bidder, the auction would be
cancelled. Additionally, they contend that serious prejudice has been caused
to their rights as they could not participate in the subsequent bid. It is also
pointed out that after the first bid was accepted, the system got locked and
the petitioners were not allowed to participate again with respect to other
plots. Thus, they have been deprived of their valuable rights, except Ms.
Meenu Jain, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6836/2019, who had also participated
in the subsequent auction. It is also submitted that in case the reason for
rejection is that the DDA wanted competition and was not willing to
consider a single bid, in that event, the DDA should have postponed the
auction and should have invited the bids again, in which case, the petitioners
would have participated.
7. There are two other grievances which have been raised by learned
counsels for the petitioners. Firstly, it is submitted that in terms of Clauses
2.4.6 and 2.6 (iii) of the tender conditions, in case a bidder was unsuccessful
the Competent Authority was required to communicate to the bidder the non-
acceptance of his bid within 15 days of the date of completion of the e-
auction process. In addition, there was an obligation on the Competent
Authority to return the EMD paid by the unsuccessful bidders without
interest. The said EMD had to be refunded electronically directly in their
bank account and that too within 15 days of the completion of the auction
process. It is submitted that these conditions of the tender have not been
complied with and the EMDs deposited by the respective petitioners were
not refunded within 15 days. The contention thus is that since the refund
was made by the DDA far beyond the period of 15 days, DDA is liable to
pay interest on the amount illegally withheld by them. Secondly, the
respondent has not informed the petitioners as to what is the reason for non-
acceptance of the bid. It is submitted that the least that is accepted of a
public authority is to communicate the reasons for not accepting the bid,
more particularly, when at the initial stage in the first tender the petitioners
ware informed that they had emerged as the highest bidders.
8. Responding to these contentions, learned counsel for DDA has
submitted that in fact the reasons for not accepting the bids of the petitioners
was informed and this would be evident from a document which was placed
on the e-portal. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
document which has been placed on record by the petitioner himself in
W.P.(C) 6842/2019. He points out that the last column of this document is
titled „reason‟ and in case the petitioner would have opened the document he
would have known the reason for rejection. He further argues that the reason
of rejection was that the single bid was not conducive to competition and
once the DDA was able to fetch higher prices, after survey of the adjoining
plots, it was decided not to accept the single bids.
9. In response to the argument of the petitioner that the EMD was not
refunded within 15 days in terms of clauses 2.4.6 and 2.6(iii), the learned
counsel submits that he has no explanation or justification for the delay.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
11. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsels for the parties we
deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of Clause 2.4 of the
tender document:-
"2.4 Evaluation of Bid
2.4.1 The accepting officer, subject to confirmation of the VC,
DDA, normally accept the highest Bid for a plot, provided that
it is above the reserve price and found to be competitive enough
to reflect the market value of the plot auctioned for.
2.4.2 The confirmation of the highest Bid shall be in the sole
discretion of the Vice Chairman, DDA who does not bind
himself to confirm the highest bid and reserve to himself the
right to reject all or any of the bid without assigning any
reasons. Any Bid not fulfilling any of the prescribed conditions
or incomplete in any respect shall be rejected"
12. A reading of this Clause would show that discretion is vested in the
Vice Chairman, DDA to reject the bids, without assigning any reason.
Learned counsel for DDA has explained that in the present case, this clause
was invoked not on account of arbitrary or whimsical reasons, but when it
was noticed that the adjoining plot had been auctioned at a much higher
price.
13. We find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the
DDA. The tabulation handed over by learned counsel for the DDA would
show gross difference of value in the first auction. The same reads as
under:-
Sl Phase III Property No. Reserve Price Amount Quoted by Name of the H1 Amount Quoted by the Difference of H1
No. (In INR) the bidder in Phase Bidder bidder in Phase IV Value of Phase III
III Auction Auction 25.06.2019 & IV Auction
24.04.2019 (In INR) (In INR)
(In INR)
1 Sl No. 69 BT-5/255 42,048,000.00 42,148,000.00 Patiala Kashmir Not placed for Auction
Mangolpuri Industrial Roadways Pvt.
Area Phase-I Ltd.
W.P. (c) - 6981/19
2 Sl No. 118, Plot No 5,804,026.00 5,854,026.00 Nitin Kumar 23,304,026.00 17,450,000.00
103, Block-E4, Rohini W.P. (c) - 6842/19
3 Sl No. 253, Plot No. 1,472,640.00 1,522,640.00 Romi Gupta 2,687,640.00 1,165,000.00
52, Block C-4, New W.P. (c) - 6818/19
Kondli [Petitioner No. 1]
4 Sl No. 252, Plot No. 1,472,640.00 1,522,640.00 Neetu Gupta 2,672,640.00 1,150,000.00
51, Block C-4, New W.P. (c) - 6818/19
Kondli [Petitioner No. 2]
5 Sl No. 100, Plot No. 11,254,848.00 11,304,848.00 Meenu Jain 33,004,848.00 21,700,000.00
48, Block E-4, Rohini W.P. (c) - 6836/19
14. On examining this tabulation, we are satisfied that the Competent
Authority exercised the powers vested in Clause 2.4 without any mala fide
and for justifiable reasons, and we do not find any fault in the action so taken
which would require interference in these proceedings.
15. As far as the submission of non-communication of the reasons is
concerned, we find that the information was infact provided on the website.
The document which we have referred to above, reflects the reason as well.
There are, however, no justifiable reasons forthcoming on behalf of the DDA
as to why the EMDs were not returned to the petitioners within fifteen days.
For this lapse, we direct the DDA to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum
for the period beyond 15 days till the amount was returned. This amount
shall be cleared within a period of four weeks from today.
16. As regards the contention of the learned counsel appearing in W.P.(C)
6842/2019 that the DDA be directed to consider that in case of a single bid
in an e-auction rather than rejecting the bid, the auction itself should be
postponed so that the single bidder is not deprived of his right to participate
in the other auctions and also in case the re-auction is to take place then re-
auction should be conducted only after the bidders of the earlier auctions are
informed. We are of the view that there is some substance in the said
contention. We therefore deem it fit to request the DDA that it should
consider this suggestion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in
future tenders, if so advised.
17. With the aforesaid observations, all the four writ petitions are
dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
JULY 05, 2019/AK/S
