[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mamta Chachan vs Rajasthan Housing Board ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:20131]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1105/2026
Gaurav Arora S/o Sh. Kherati Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
9/92, Ward No. 08, Rajasthan Housing Board Colony
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh - 335512.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At
Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction - 335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1164/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh - 335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At
Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction - 335512.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:13:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (2 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1165/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh - 335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At
Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction - 335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1168/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh-335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At
Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur-302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:13:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (3 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction-335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction-
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1223/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh-335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office
At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board,jan Path,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction -335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1225/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh-335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office
At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:13:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (4 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction -335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1227/2026
Mamta Chachan W/o Sh. Anjani Kumar Chachan, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 249, 2Nd Floor, General Market, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh-335513.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office
At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At- 'awas Bhawan', Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction -335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh, Office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction -
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1345/2026
Rai Singh S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chak 9
N W D Rampura Matoria, Ward 2, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh, 335524.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:13:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (5 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Secretary, Office At
Awas Bhawan, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur. 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office At Awas Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
302005.
3. Deptuy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction 335512.
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Circle Bikaner, Division Hanumangarh,office Of Rajasthan
Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Junction
335512.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4487/2026
Sunita W/o Naval Kishor, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 1A-
214, New Rhb Colony, Hanumangarh Jn., Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan Path, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur. 302005.
2. The Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jan
Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh J. 335512
4. Additional Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board,
Office Of Rajasthan Housing Board, Old Rhb Colony,
Hanumangarh J. 335512
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan
Mr. Dishant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Tatia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (6 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
Order
28/04/2026
1. The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common
questions of fact and law; hence, the same have been heard
together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the
respondents issued an e-auction notice for allotment of various
types of plots under a scheme named New R.H.B. Colony, Near
DTO, Hanumangarh. The petitioners participated in the respective
e-auctions held from 26.05.2025 to 28.05.2025 and were declared
the highest bidders for their respective plots, namely B-38, A-15,
A-27, A-26, A-02, A-03, A-07, B-30, and B/K-06(c). Pursuant to
the auction process, the petitioners deposited the requisite
amount, including 15% of the bid amount, within the stipulated
time, which was duly accepted by the respondents. The auction
proceedings thus stood concluded insofar as the petitioners are
concerned.
3. However, despite completion of all formalities and acceptance
of the deposited amount, the respondents failed to issue allotment
letters to the petitioners, and subsequently, the bids of the
petitioners came to be rejected vide impugned orders, primarily
on the ground that the bid amounts were not competitive in
comparison to earlier auctions and neighbouring plots. Aggrieved
thereby, the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the
petitioners were declared the highest bidders and the requisite
15% amount was accepted by the respondents, the petitioners
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (7 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
acquired a legitimate right to be treated as successful bidders, and
the respondents were under an obligation to complete the
allotment process.
5. It was contended that the ground of "non-competitive rates"
is wholly arbitrary and not traceable to any condition of the
auction. It was further submitted that there is no allegation of
fraud, collusion, or irregularity in the auction process and that the
impugned action has been taken without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners.
6. It has further been submitted that the action of the
respondents is in violation of the earlier order passed by this Court
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17891/2025, directing completion of
the auction proceedings. Reliance has been placed upon a
judgment of this Court, wherein it has been held that once a valid
bid is received and there is no illegality in the auction process, the
same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a higher price
was expected.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Golden Food Products of India v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. passed by the hon'ble
supreme court in SLP (Civil) Nos.18095-
18096/2024.
Umesh Kumar Vyas V. State of Rajasthan
passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6122/2025.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while
opposing the writ petitions, submitted that the petitioners cannot
be treated as successful bidders merely on account of having been
declared the highest bidders. It was contended that, as per the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (8 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
terms and conditions governing the auction as well as the
applicable rules, the respondents reserve the right to accept or
reject any bid prior to issuance of the allotment letter, and no
vested right accrues in favour of a bidder until the allotment is
finalized.
9. It was submitted that the petitioners have misconstrued the
mechanism relating to deposit of 15% of the auction value. As per
the e-auction terms, a bidder is required to deposit 2% prior to
bidding and the remaining 13% within 72 hours of closure of the
auction, which together constitutes 15% of the bid amount. It was
contended that such deposit is merely a procedural requirement
and does not confer the status of a successful bidder, as the bid
remains subject to scrutiny and final approval by the competent
authority, which retains the discretion to accept or reject the
same.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the bids offered by
the petitioners were not competitive and were substantially lower
in comparison to the rates fetched in earlier auctions as well as for
similarly situated plots in the vicinity. It was submitted that the
respondents, being custodians of public property, are under an
obligation to ensure that such property is not disposed of at rates
lower than the prevailing market value and, therefore, the
decision to reject the bids was taken in public interest. On these
grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the present writ
petitions.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the material available on record, this Court prima facie
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (9 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
finds that the petitioners were declared the highest bidders in a
duly conducted e-auction process, and there is no allegation of
any irregularity, illegality, fraud, or collusion in the conduct of the
auction proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners
deposited the requisite amount, including 15% of the bid amount,
within the stipulated time, and the same was duly accepted by the
respondents. In such circumstances, the rights of the petitioners
had progressed beyond a mere offer and had attained a degree of
finality, which could not have been unsettled except for valid and
legally sustainable reasons.
12. It is pertinent to note that the rejection of the allotment in
question has been premised on the ground that the rates offered
by the petitioners were "not competitive", i.e., lower in comparison
to previous auctions and neighbouring plots. This Court finds that
such a ground is inherently vague and not referable to any specific
condition of the auction process. In the considered opinion of this
Court, a mere expectation of securing a higher price cannot
constitute a valid basis for cancellation of a concluded auction,
particularly when the bid submitted is above the prescribed
minimum bid value and no irregularity, illegality, or procedural
infirmity has been alleged.
13. This Court, in the case of "Umesh Kumar Vyas v. State of
Rajasthan" (supra), has held as under:-
"20. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of fixing
a reserve price is to ensure that public property is
not sold at an unreasonably low price and to
safeguard the financial interest of the auctioning
authority. In the present case, although the bid
submitted by the petitioner was not accepted on the
ground that it was allegedly much lower than the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20131] (10 of 10) [CW-1105/2026]
prevailing market price of the plot, the respondents
themselves retained the same reserve price for the
plot in question while issuing the fresh e-auction
notice dated 17/18.02.2025."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Golden Food Products of
India" (supra) has held as under:-
"32. An auction process has a sanctity attached to it and
only for valid reasons that the highest bid can be discarded in
an auction which is otherwise held in accordance with law. If a
valid bid has been made which is above the reserve price,
there should be a rationale or reason for not accepting it.
Therefore, the decision to discard the highest bid must have a
nexus to the rationale or the reason. Merely because the
authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than
what the highest bidder had bid cannot be a reason to discard
the highest bid. In the instant case, no other party had placed
a bid higher than the appellant herein. There was no infirmity
in the conduct of the auction. ...."
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the precedent law,
the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
16. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to issue allotment orders in favour of the
petitioners for the respective plots, namely B-38, A-15, A-27, A-
26, A-02, A-03, A-07, B-30, and B/K-06(c), under the scheme
named New R.H.B. Colony, Near DTO, Hanumangarh, and to take
all consequential steps for concluding the auction process in
accordance with law.
17. Stay application(s) also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
32-40 divya/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 11:28:16 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
