SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 921

ASHOK BHAN, S.H.KAPADIA
Anil Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The document does not explicitly address or require any specific "consent" for accepting a bid below the reserve price. It explains that a reserve (or upset) price in a tender or auction process acts as a limit on the authority of the relevant officer or auctioneer, who cannot accept a bid below that price. [1000092250010][1000092250011]

The reserve price is described as a guideline fixed under a Board Resolution to facilitate the tender process and is not equivalent to the property's valuation; the actual tender price (above reserve) is what matters for evaluation, provided there is wide publicity and no evidence of arbitrariness. [1000092250011][1000092250012][1000092250013][1000092250014] (!) (!) (!)


JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.-Leave granted in SLP.

2. Anil Kumar Srivastava claiming to be a public spirited citizen residing in Section 14, Noida, U.P. moved Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10137 of 2004 [Transferred Case No. 54 of 2004 herein] challenging the Scheme bearing No. 2003-2004 (Commercial Hub) - Sector 18 floated by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) for construction of a commercial hub on a plot bearing No. M-3 in Sector 18, Noida as arbitrary and violative of norms contained in the Board Resolution dated 10.7.2003 and the precedents with regard to size and reserve price, resulting in the loss to the State exchequer of Rs. 3.40 crores. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the impugned Scheme awards 54,320.18 sq. mtrs. of prime commercial land, without precedent, at 1/4th of the prevailing market price and by fixing the reserve price at abysmally low, throw away, price; that the said Scheme is, therefore, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the Scheme. Pending hearing and final disposal, the petitioner sought interim reliefs restraining NOIDA, respondent

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top