Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Savita Mathur vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:13781]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5336/2025
Savita Mathur W/o Sajjan Lal Mathur, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
1-B-38, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development And Housing Department (Udh),
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Awas Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Additional Chief Engineer-Ii, Rajasthan Housing
Board, Jodhpur Zone, House No. 17 E 539, Chopasani
Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. The Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing
Board, Circle Second, Sector 11, Chopasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. The Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Division
First, Sector 11, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Bora with
Ms. Akansha Siddhawat
Ms. Khushbu Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
12/03/2025
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.4458/2025 (Kishan Singh Rajpurohit
[2025:RJ-JD:13781] (2 of 3) [CW-5336/2025]
vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 14.02.2025.
The same is reproduced as under :-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated
that the petitioner submitted a bid for purchase of
the residential plot bearing No.14-E-247 (Gen.) and
14-E-248 having an area of 210 square meter
situated at Chopasani, Jodhpur. According to him,
the minimum reserved price for the purchase was
1,05,00,500/-for each plot. While submitting the
tender, his bid amount was wrongly calculated and
mistakenly quoted more than 200 crore. According
to him, that quotation was on the account of a
typographical error.
2. The petitioner's grievance is that since the bid
amount which he quoted was exorbitantly high and
the same bid was accepted by the respondents to
which he expressed his inability to comply with the
bid process, since the value which was quoted was
Rs.200 crore, whereas the reserved price was only
Rs.50,000 for the plot area.
3. Prima faice it appears that the bid which was
submitted by the petitioner was due to a mistake in
calculation. Since acceptance of the bid is not
assailed before this Court, it would not be fair to
interfere. The petitioner expresses that the bid
amount was quoted very high side which happened
on account of this calculation, which prima facie
appears to be genuine.
4. Therefore, this Court gives liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation to the concerned
authorities detailing the circumstances under which
the bid amount was made considering the reserved
price and area of the land. If any such
representation
[2025:RJ-JD:13781] (3 of 3) [CW-5336/2025]
is made, the respondent authorities shall
sympathetically consider the same within a period of
45 days of the receipt of the same revoking such a
bid and may also consider for refund of the EMD
since the quotation amount prima faice appears to
be mistake/error in calculation. With the said
observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
5. Till such a decision is taken, the amount already
deposited shall not be forfeited. While returning the
bid amount, the respondents are at liberty to
deduct any reasonable expenses they have incurred
for the publication of e-tender.
6. The stay petition also stands disposed of".
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
in terms of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Kishan Singh Rajpurohit's case (supra).
The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
45-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
