Amit Sharma vs M.P. Housing And Infrastructure ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13746 MP

                             - : 1 :-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT INDORE
                            BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                  ON THE 18th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                WRIT PETITION No. 1294 of 2022

     BETWEEN:-
     AMIT SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM KISHORE SHARMA,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB,
     R/O H. NO. 2057 RAJ MOHOLLA MHOW (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
     (MS. PRANJALI   YAJURVEDI,   LEARNED   COUNSEL FOR      THE
     PETITIONER)

     AND
     M.P.    HOUSING     AND     INFRASTRUCTURE
     DEVELOPMENT      BOARD     THR.    HOUSING
1.
     COMMISSIONER DIVISION 2 INDORE SHOPING
     COMPLEX AB ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
     ESTATE    OFFICER    M.P.   HOUSING    AND
     INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INDORE
2.
     INDORE SHOPPING COMPLEX, AB ROAD, INDORE
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     YUVRAJ SINGH JAGRAWAT S/O SHRI MAHENDRA
3.   KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 431-B,
     JAGJEEVAN NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     STATE OF M.P. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
4.   MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
     VALLABH BHAVAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI SHASHANK SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
     RESPONDENT [R-1 & R-2].

     (SHRI APOORV JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
     [R-3])
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

- : 2 :-

Petitioner as well as respondent No.3 submitted bid for shop No.S-05 in pursuant to the advertisement 22.10.2021. The respondent No.3 was found highest bidder and accordingly allotment letter dated 16.12.2021 was issued to him. The respondent No.3 has submitted representation that by mistake, he has quoted the rate of 70 lacs in place of 7 lacs, therefore, he is not intending to pursue his bid and requested to respondents for withdrawal of bid. The M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development has accepted the presentation and returned the EMD amount.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was second highest bidder in the said auction, therefore, M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development should have issued the allotment letter in his favour and instead of doing so they are going fresh auction. It is further submitted that petitioner has offered double amount of upset price, therefore, there is no question of loss to the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development. By order dated 25.01.2022, this Court has restrained to respondent No.1 and 2 not to go for fresh auction. The respondent No.1 to 2 filed returned which is completely silent in respect relief claimed by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has no objection as he has already withdrawn his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Chairman Cum Managing Director Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others Vs. Sunita Kumari and another (2014) 16 SCC 790 in which the

- : 3 :-

Apex Court upheld allotment in favour of second range candidates after cancellation of allotment made in favour of first ranked bidder.

In view of the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to issue allotment letter in favour of petitioner, if he is found eligible.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2022.10.19 16:35:57 +05'30'