Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. A Private ... vs Indore Development Authority on 11 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17644
1 WP-13637-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13637 of 2022
SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SHANILAL VAI
Versus
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the
Resolution No. 91, dated 18.05.2022 whereby the bid process has been
cancelled and directed for re-bidding. Petitioner immediately came to this
Court challenging the aforesaid Resolution. After 22.06.2022, this petition
was not listed. During this period, fourth time the IDA issued a tender, but
no one declared successful bidder and the land in question (Plot No. 34-A-C
situated in Scheme No. 151, Super Corridor, Indore) is lying vacant. In the
second round of bidding, the petitioner participated, but his bid was rejected
on technical ground. Neither the petitioner nor IDA has brought this
subsequent development on record in this Writ Petition till today. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17644
2 WP-13637-2022
petitioner since has participated in the second round of bidding and the
tender was rejected on technical ground which remained unchallenged till
date. So far the issue in respect of cancelling the bid and issuing a
subsequent bid has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Indore
Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr.
reported in 2004 INSC 904 [SLP (Civil) No. 9940 of 2022] . The relevant
paras14 & 15 are mentioned as under:-
"14. Keeping in view of the aforesaid judgments, this
Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of
allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, no relief
could have been granted in favour of respondent No.1
as there was no concluded contract in the matter and the
decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee to
generate more revenues could not have been interfered
with in the manner and method as has been done by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore Bench. The bidder has no right in the matter of
bid except of fair treatment and cannot insist for further
negotiation as has been done in the present case. The
terms and conditions of NIT, particularly condition No.
6, empowers the IDA to accept or reject any or all bids.
In the present case, the bid was rejected for valid and
cogent reasons and, therefore, the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is
set aside.
15. Learned Counsels for respondent No. 1 placed
heavy reliance on Eva Agro (supra) stating that the
Appellant does not have absolute or unfettered
discretion to cancel the auction. While we agree with
the principle that the auctioning authority must adhere
to the rule of law, the facts of the present case are
entirely distinguishable from Eva Agro (supra). In that
case, after the Appellant therein was declared the
highest bidder, the auction was cancelled without
providing any reason. This decision was found to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17644
3 WP-13637-2022
manifestly arbitrary by this Court and therefore, the
appeal was allowed. However, in the present case, the
decision to cancel the auction was not unfounded, it was
undertaken to remedy the erroneous minimum rate
provided in the NIT dated 07.07.2020, as noted in the
report of the Div. Commissioner of the IDA. Therefore,
the Appellants were well within their rights to cancel
the auction. More importantly, in the present case,
pursuant to the cancellation of the first NIT, a second
NIT was issued wherein the respondent No. 1 did not
participate. Despite this fact, the Division Bench of the
High Court effectively usurped the powers of the
auctioning authority and fixed the price at Rs. 26,000/-
per square meter. Hence, being entirely distinguishable
on facts, the reliance placed is of no assistance to
respondent No. 1."
02. In view of subsequent development, nothing survives in this
petition. If the plot is lying vacant, the IDA may issue a fresh tender for
allotment in which the petitioner shall have liberty to apply.
03. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
