Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sharvan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

(1 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2995/2022

Madhu Lunawat W/o Shri Gajendra Lunawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jk Complex Sugan Singh Circle District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary Department Of Industries, Jaipur Secretary Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Managing Director.

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Gogelav, District Nagaur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2503/2022 Rajendra Prasad Jhanwar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Katla Chowk, Near Nahata Market, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat Jaipur

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur,

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2728/2022 Rajendra Prasad Jhanwar S/o Radha Kishan, Aged About 47 Years, Ward No.13, Katla Chowk, Near Nahata Market, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

(2 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2871/2022 Narendra Kumar Shanklecha S/o Shri Bhikam Chand, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Hirawari, Dist Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director, The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3016/2022 Kiran Kuldeep W/o Suresh Kuldeep, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Regar, Resident Of Badli Tehsil And District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Industrial Dev. And Invest. Corp. Ltd.

(Riico), Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman

2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico) Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

                                        (3 of 14)                      [CW-2995/2022]


3.     Regional    Manager,           Rajasthan               State      Industrial

Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Nagaur.

4. Assistant Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Nagaur.

5. Assistant Accountant Officer I, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Nagaur.

6. Unit Head, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3032/2022 Smt. Saroj Sharma W/o Shri Devidutt Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Behind Kisan Hospital, Nagour (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary Department Of Industries, Jaipur. Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Managing Director.

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Gogelav, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3085/2022 Abdul Khan S/o Ayoob Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Ajmeri Gate, Sindhlo Ka Mohalla, Dist Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur

----Respondents

(4 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3095/2022 Shobha Devi Sarda W/o Ram Kishroe, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Thhatheron Ka Mohalla, Mg Road, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3099/2022 Sharvan Sharma S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1/94-95 Phed Colony Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary Department Of Industries, Jaipur, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Managing Director.

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Gogelav, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3112/2022 Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Fateh Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Malio Ka Mohalla, Nagaur. (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary Department Of Industries, Jaipur, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Through Managing Director.

(5 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd. Gogelav, District Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/2022 Pawan S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Village Phirod, Dist Nagaur. (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Gogelaw, District Nagaur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha, Ms. Anukriti Ladrecha, Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Mr. Kunal Bishnoi, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary with Mr. Rajendra Katariya, Mr. O.P. Sangwa.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit with Ms. Nidhi Singhvi.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

23/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against cancellation / rejection of their bid by order

dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent- Corporation.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the

respondent - Corporation invited small & medium scale

businessmen to bid for plots situated in RIICO Industrial Area,

(6 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

Gogelav, Nagaur. The advertisement dated 31.12.2021 in this

regard was issued. The petitioners filed applications and

deposited EMD with respect to the various plots.

Pursuant to the advertisement, e-auction for the plots in

question was conducted on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022. After

conclusion of the e-auction, the petitioners were placed at rank

one in the bid process, as their bids were highest for the plot

concerned.

It is alleged that one of the bidders for other plots made

complaints regarding inability to bid for the plots in question and

that he was prepared to purchase the plots at higher rates. The

respondent - RIICO by its order dated 02.02.2022 rejected the

bids of the petitioners.

The petitioners made representations regarding cancellation

of the bids, however, no response was received and feeling

aggrieved on account of rejection of the bid, the present writ

petitions have been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement

submissions that pursuant to the advertisement, e-auction was

held, wherein various bidders participated for large number of

plots. Qua the disputed plots, the petitioners were the highest

bidders and based on which, they were entitled for allotment of

the plots in question. However, the RIICO for no apparent reason

and based on a purported complaint, has rejected the bids, which

is not justified.

Submissions were made that once the auction process was

initiated, as the bid made by the petitioners is more than the

base rate fixed for the particular plot, it is not open for the RIICO

(7 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

to thereafter cancel the said auction on the purported ground of

other plots in question having fetched higher amount.

Learned counsel further made submissions that even in

cases where similar plots' bid made is for higher amounts, the said

amounts have not been deposited, which clearly shows that the

bid made by the petitioners was reasonable and the action of the

respondents in this regard cannot be sustained and therefore, the

petitions be allowed and rejection of the petitioners' bid be

quashed and set-aside.

A reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the

respondents, inter-alia, raising preliminary objection that the

bidders have no right to question the action of the respondents

with regard to the cancellation of the bids, inasmuch as, the

respondent-Corporation has reserved its right to accept any offer

or to reject all or any bid without assigning any reason.

Further submissions have been made that issue in this

regard stand settled by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and this Court and as such, no interference was required in

the matter.

Learned counsel made further submissions with reference to

the minutes of the e-auction held on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022

filed as Annexure-R/1, wherein the committee after observing that

out of total 75 plots put in e-auction, 60 plots received multiple

bids, 11 plots received single bids and no bids were received for

04 plots. The committee recommended for rejection of single bids

for 11 plots as 'first time bids have been invited and no

competition has taken place.' It rejected multiple bids for 11

plots as committee had recommended rejection of single bids

having rates of 1210-1260 per m2, for 16 plots having range

(8 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

1270-1500 per m2 as there was significant variation in the rates

having range 1210 to 3000 sqm., the plots having bid rate 1500

per sqm. and less was 38 and plots having rates about 1500 per

sqm. was 33 and half of the maximum rate quoted was 1500 per

sqm. upto 21 bidders for the same plot and therefore, the bids

were rejected for plots where the rates were received between

1270 per sqm. and 1500 per sqm. The bids received at the rate of

1510-2000 for 09 plots and more than 2000 for 24 plots were

approved by the Unit Level Committee.

It is submitted that looking to the huge difference in bid

rates for similarly situated plots, the respondent - Corporation

was justified in cancelling the e-bid for the plots in dispute.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, on 10.03.2022, learned counsel appearing for the RIICO

was directed to place on record the map containing the location of

the disputed plots, qua which the petitions have been filed and

those plots, which have received bids at higher rates.

Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have filed an

additional affidavit alongwith a map indicating the disputed plots

alongwith the plots which have obtained higher rates. Both nature

of plots have been marked in different colours.

A perusal of the said map clearly shows that the rejected

single / multiple bid plots and the approved bids plots, all are

similarly situated. Not a single disputed plot, is having location, of

such a nature whereby the difference in the bid rates can be

justified and/or it can be concluded that on account of the nature

of location, the bid rate was justified. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also failed to make any submissions to justify the

difference.

(9 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

In the said fact situation, wherein the rates have varied too

much qua the disputed plots as well as the approved bid plots, it

cannot be said that the action of the respondents in rejecting the

bids is in any manner arbitrary.

Besides the above, the law in this regard is well settled.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development

Authority & Ors. v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private

Limited : (2017) 4 SCC 243, has held as under :-

27. This Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 365 has laid down that there is no obligation to accept the highest bid. The Government is entitled even to change its policy from time to time according to the demands of the time. It was observed thus :

"3. It appears to us that the High Court had clearly misdirected itself. The Conditions of Auction made it perfectly clear that the Government was under no obligation to accept the highest bid and that no rights accrued to the bidder merely because his bid happened to be the highest. Under Condition 10 it was expressly provided that the acceptance of bid at the time of auction was entirely provisional and was subject to ratification by the competent authority, namely, the State Government. Therefore, the Government had the right, for good and sufficient reason, we may say, not to accept the highest bid but even to prefer a tenderer other than the highest bidder. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Government could not refuse to accept the highest bid except on the ground of inadequacy of the bid. Condition 10 does not so restrict the power of the Government not to accept the bid. There is no reason why the power vested in the Government to refuse to accept the highest bid should be confined to inadequacy of bid only. There may be a variety of good and sufficient reasons, apart from inadequacy of bids, which may impel the Government not to accept the highest bid. In fact, to give an antithetic illustration, the very enormity of a bid may make it suspect. It may lead the Government to realise that no bona fide bidder could possibly offer such a bid if he meant to do honest business. Again the Government may change or refuse its policy from time to time and we see no reason why change of policy by the Government, subsequent to the auction but before its confirmation, may not be a sufficient justification for the refusal to accept the highest bid. It cannot be disputed that the Government has the right to change its policy from time to time, according to the demands of the time and situation and in the public interest. If the Government has the power to accept or not to accept the highest bid and if the Government has also the power to change its policy from time to time, it

(10 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

must follow that a change or revision of policy subsequent to the provisional acceptance of the bid but before its final acceptance is a sound enough reason for the Government's refusal to accept the highest bid at an auction..."

29. In Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 171, this Court has laid down that a bidder has no right in the matter of bid except of fair treatment in the matter and cannot insist for further negotiation. The Authority has a right to reject the highest bid. This Court has laid down thus :

"27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the abovestated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.

xxxxx

29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism."

In the case of Komal Aggrawal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

D.B.S.A.W. No.274/2012, decided on 25.04.2012, the Division

Bench of this Court held as under :-

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the material available on record, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference.

Admittedly as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the bid offered were subject to confirmation and the RIICO had reserved its right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason. Since the sale was subject to confirmation, therefore, no concluded contract could come into existence till the sale is confirmed by the competent authority. In the instance case, the appellant on her own accepting the terms and conditions applied for the plot in question and the competent committee of RIICO rejected the bid of the appellant for Plot No.Gl-958 and that of one Ms. Parul Gupta for Plot No.HJ419 for the reason that offer made by them were just little higher than the reserve price. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand (1994 (1) SCC 131) wherein it has been held

(11 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

that the auction purchaser gets a right only on confirmation of sale and till then his right is nebulous and has only right to consideration for confirmation of sale. Thus, the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case formed opinion that the rejection of the bid by the competent authority cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary and we find no good ground to interfere with the same. The learned Single Judge has also taken into account scope of judicial review in such contractual matter and noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investment and Anr. (2007 (1) SCC 477) wherein it has been observed that in the matter of sale of the plots by the public body which are commercial transaction, even if some defects are found the Court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with great care and caution and should exercise only in furtherance of public interest. That apart it has come on record that in the subsequent NIT inviting the sealed bids for the said plot, the reserve price is fixed at Rs.3500/- and the highest bid received is Rs.5130/- which is more than double the price offered by the appellant and the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the cost of the plot has doubled just within a period of four months refused to grant indulgence as it will be against the public interest. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the appellant. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the intra court appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, the intra court appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed. D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.6002/2012 also stands dismissed."

In the case of Rohit Burad v. RIICO & Anr. : D.B.S.A.W.

No.599/2021 alongwith connected appeals, decided on

27.10.2021, the Division Bench of this Court held as under :-

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find that the appellant has made out any case for interference. It is undisputed position that the auction notice itself specified that the RIICO reserves the right to accept the bid. The circular issued by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. also specifies that reserved rate should not be the only criteria while finalizing the highest bid. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle by the judgments of the Supreme Court that a person participating in the auction does not have a vested right for the offer to be accepted, simply because it happens to be the highest bid. The authority inviting offers reserves the right to accept or not to accept the bid even if the same happens to be the highest offer. Such right, of

(12 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

course, has to be exercised reasonably and cannot be a matter of arbitrary exercise of pick and choose.

In the present case, the RIICO authorities have placed full material on record justifying its action of canceling the bids. It is pointed out that in large number of cases, multiple bids of much higher value were offered for adjacent plots. Whereas in some of the cases, there were single bids and the price offered was marginally over the offset price. The analysis placed before the Court along with the affidavit filed, would show that other plots were auctioned at the rate of Rs. 1330 per sq. mtrs. to Rs. 1790 per sq. mtrs. which was substantially higher than the bid offered by the petitioner at Rs. 1210 per sq. mtrs."

In the case of Dr. Deepak Kumar Mathur v. State Urban

Developmentor : D.B.S.A.W. No.742/2014 alongwith connected

appeals, decided on 27.10.2021 (at Jaipur Bench), the Division

Bench of this Court held as under :-

"It is always for the authority to decide whether the price offered in an auction is adequate and accepting or rejecting a bid it is merely performing an executive function. The correctness of its conclusion is not open to judicial review unless the decision making process is unfair or the action of the State or its instrumentality is contrary to public good, public interest, unjust or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which the appellants have not been able to justify from the material on record in the instant bunch of appeals.

In the instant case as well the appellants had not acquired any right in their favour and merely because they are the highest bidders and deposited 15% of the bid with the Board and that being subject to acceptance of the competent authority and there is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted and that apart the learned Single Judge also perused & examined the records and observed that in few cases MSP was determined without proper consideration or the rate was inadequate and it was not the case of the appellants that different standards have been adopted or there was any element of selectivity in decision making process of the competent authority for non-acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder and the primary reason as observed was that the bid of the appellants could not fetch price of the plot after it being due compared with the price fetched of the plot in the nearby areas in few cases and in some of the cases MSP was found to be faulty and in totality the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board was not satisfied with the bid which was offered by the so called alleged highest bidder and accordingly it was proposed to initiate the auction after due determination of MSP afresh and in our considered view there is sufficient material on record which could justify the decision making process adopted

(13 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

by the respondent in taking its final decision for non- acceptance of the bid offered by the highest bidder.

xxxxx As regards the submission made regarding reason not being assigned by the competent authority in passing of the order impugned in our considered view is without substance for the reason that there is no requirement under the law to indicate reasons by the competent authority for acceptance or rejection of the bid offered by the highest bidder and this being the executive function of the competent authority no reason is supposed to be assigned while taking impugned decision and the correctness of its conclusion is ordinarily not open to judicial review unless the right conferred being infringed by action of the authority which is not the case of the appellants pleaded before the Court. The State or the other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender/offer or bid and the competent authority could validly retain its power to accept or reject the highest bid obviously in the interest of public revenue and in absence of there being any concluded contract the conclusion reached by the authority does not infringe rights of the highest bidder and we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge in passing of order impugned which may call for our interference."

In the case of Ramdev Group Industries v. RIICO & Anr. :

S.B.C.W.P. No.3426/2021 alongwith connected writ petitions,

decided on 21.09.2021, this Court held as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.

These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons that firstly, the petitioners have participated in the E-Auction after carefully reading the terms and conditions of the Auction and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the RIICO reserves the right to cancel the highest bid offered by the petitioners. Secondly, the Auction Committee considered the fact that higher multiple bids have been received in the same auction for another plots, therefore the offers made by the petitioners were rejected by the Auction Committee. Thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority(supra) as well as in the matter of Komal Aggarwal (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed."

(14 of 14) [CW-2995/2022]

In view of the above factual and legal position, the

petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by

this Court.