Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asian Footwear Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 March, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -1- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 06.12.2023
Pronounced on: 12.03.2024
1. CWP-12995-2023
Asian Footwear Private Limited .... Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
2. CWP-1546-2023
Norton Chemicals & Specialties Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
3. CWP-19305 of 2022
Neeraj Gupta and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
4. CWP-19321 of 2022
Prachi Garg and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
5. CWP-19345 of 2022
Ashish Rana and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 00:28:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -2- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
6. CWP-20782 of 2022
Gopal Nagdev @ Gopal Krishan Nagdev and Anr. .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
7. CWP-21653 of 2022
Ritu Gupta .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
8. CWP-22088 of 2022
Harpreet Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
9. CWP-30092 of 2022
Sanjay Gupta .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
10. CWP-4874 of 2023
TRZ Mart Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
11. CWP-6101 of 2023
Rishabh Katyal & Others .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 00:28:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -3- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
Present: Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-12995-2023 and 4874 of 2023.
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-20782-2022.
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-21653, 19305, 19321
& 22088 of 2022.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP_30092 of 2022.
Mr. Rohit Chandel, Advocate and
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-19345-2022.
Mr. Pankaj Mahavir Chauhan, Advocate and
Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-6101-2023.
Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1546-2023.
Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate with
Ms. Vasudhra Asija, Advocate
for respondents in CWP-1546-2023
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate
for the respondents-HSIIDC.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate
for respondents -HSIIDC in CWP-21653-2022
ARUN PALLI, J.
For, learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter in
issue in this bunch of 11 writ petitions is identical, these are being disposed
of by a common order and judgment. However, the facts are being derived
from CWP No.12995 of 2023.
The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:
"Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, seeking a writ in the nature of
mandamus, to the extent that respondents be directed, to allot
the plot in category size 14507 sq. mtr. as the petitioner had
applied for the plot of category size-14507 sq. mtr. in an e-
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -4- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
auction of Industrial plot at Bahadurgarh Sector 4-B which
was conducted on 06.10.2022 and despite the petitioner being
the highest and successful bidder in the auction process, the
respondents in an arbitrary and whimsical manner, without
advancing any reason have proceeded to cancel the
allotment/booking of the plot.
AND/OR
Further seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned communication dated 22.02.2023
(Annexure P-7) received by the petitioner from HSIIDC
through e-mail at 4.15 pm, whereby it was communicated that
the H-1 bid of the petitioner has not been accepted, the same
communication is absolutely without any thyme or reason
apart from being whimsical and arbitrary.
AND/OR
Further, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for
quashing of the impugned communication dated 22.02.2023
(Annexure P-8), received by the petitioner through from E-
mail of HSIIDC, ESTATE.AUCTION@HSIIDC at 4.24 P.M.
whereby the respondents in an arbitrary manner have
intimated about non acceptance of H-1 bids pertaining to the
e-auction conducted by the respondent No.2 corporation.
AND/OR
Further seeking appropriate directions to respondents
for keeping the plot 366, Sector 4B, Industrial Estate
Bahadurgarh 14507 sqm. out of the auction process s qua the
same the H-1 bid of the petitioner was accepted and he was
shown to be the successful bidder."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Haryana State
Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Corporation)
issued a brochure (P-2), for allotment of various industrial sites/plots,
comprised in different industrial estates, through e-auction. The e-auction
was conducted by the Corporation on 24.08.2022. Accordingly, the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -5- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
petitioner participated in the auction for allotment of a plot, measuring
14507 square meters, situated in Sector 4-B, Bahadurgarh. And, in terms of
clause B.1. of the brochure, the petitioner deposited 5% of the reserve price,
as earnest money (Rs.1,23,30,950/-), and also Rs.25,000/- as processing fee.
For the petitioner submitted the highest bid @ Rs.32,800/- per square meter,
it was adjudged H1. A formal communication dated 06.10.2022 (P-6),
acknowledging this fact, was issued to the petitioner and it was conveyed
that the last date for making H1 payment shall be scheduled shortly, after
conclusion of the e-auction. For the petitioner was/is always ready and
willing to comply with the terms of the auction and deposit the balance
consideration, it had a legitimate expectation that the Corporation would
soon issue a formal letter of allotment in its favour. However, he asserts that
vide communication dated 22.02.2023 (P-7), the petitioner was informed
that the bid submitted by it has since been rejected and the amount deposited
as earnest money would be refunded shortly. Thus, it is urged that the action
of the Corporation is apparently arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable. For the
competent authority neither passed any formal order before rejecting the bid
submitted by the petitioner, nor, to date, it has been communicated the
reasons, as to what compelled the authority to cancel the process. In this
regard, he places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
M/s Star Enterprises etc. Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, 1990 (3) SCC 280, and a decision of this
Court in Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984 AIR (Punjab
and Haryana) 282.
The records show that notice was issued and accepted on behalf
of the respondents, as back as on 04.07.2023. However, to date, no response
has been submitted on their behalf.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that
although the authorities had recorded reasons to reject the bid submitted by
the petitioner and cancel the auction, but, he concedes that no formal order
in this regard was communicated to the petitioner.
We had heard learned counsel for the parties at length, when
during the course of hearing, they have reached a consensus: since
concededly, before rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner, despite
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -6- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB
being adjudged H1, neither any formal order was passed, nor any reasons
were assigned to justify the rejection of bid submitted by the petitioner and
cancellation of auction, it shall be expedient if this bunch of petitions is
disposed of, at this stage, to enable the respondent authorities to examine the
concerns/grievances of the petitioner. And pass necessary orders, assigning
reasons in support thereof. It is agreed that before any such orders are
passed, the petitioners would be afforded an opportunity of hearing, as also
the other stake holders. Further, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to
place any fresh material/documents, if so advised, to support/substantiate its
claim, provided the same are submitted within two weeks from the date of
this order. And in all those cases where the authorities, despite rejection of
the bids and cancellation of auction, have not yet refunded the amount
deposited by the petitioner(s), the requisite amount shall be refunded, along
with interest @ 5.5.% from the date they were communicated rejection of
their bids till realization of the amount. For a timely decision by the
competent authority would secure the mutual interest of the parties to the lis,
the necessary orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed within a period
of two months from the date of this order. However, till the formal orders, as
indicated above, are passed, the site(s) in question would not be put to
auction, creating any third party rights.
In the wake of the position sketched out above and the
consensus that has been arrived at between the parties, all these petitions are
disposed of.
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as
indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the
petitioners, strictly in accordance with law.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
deepak/AK Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035641-DB
6 of 6
