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

2010 Supreme(SC) 1137

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority
Versus
Universal Estate & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10015 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21458 of 2010)
Decided on : 25-11-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Y. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate For the Respondents:Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Rakesh Khanna, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority Act, 2004 – Section 33 r/w clause 5(5) of the Regulations – After successful bidder deposits 10% amount, CEO has to decide about accepting the bid keeping in mind maximum benefit to the Authority – Bid is taken to be accepted on passing of positive order within specified time – High Court erred in holding that bid stands accepted on deposit of 10% amount and CEO has no right to reject the bid after such deposit. (Para 14, 15)

       (b) Government auction – Judicial review – Scope is very limited – Court interfere only when action of public authority is detrimental to public interest – Respondent No.l manipulating offer of a lower price – Giving bids for both sites – One of its partners giving highest bid for the smaller plot – Withdrawing offer on the same day without rhyme or reason – Respondent No.1 being the next highest bidder not pressing for acceptance of its bid and willingly accepting refund of participation money – Quite unusual – Bid of respondent No.1 for bigger site higher than other bids by few hundred rupees only, the maximum difference being Rs.529/- – An attempt being made to grab a potential commercial site of 9947 square meters at a very low price – Had CEO resorted to open auction instead of sealed bids, Authority would have fetched much higher price – That would have been in public interest. (Para 17)

       (2000) 2 SCC 617; (2007) 14 SCC 517; (1993) 1 SCC 445; (1994) 6 SCC 651; (2006) 11 SCC 548; (2009) 6 SCC 171; (1980) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Chief Executive Officer invited sealed bids from the general public for allotment of institutional/industrial/school plots at Atal Shiksha Kunj, Kallujhanda (Baddi), Bhatolikalan (Baddi) and Basal at Solan and two commercial sites at Parwanoo, one measuring 475.40 square meters and the other measuring 9947 square meters on leasehold basis for 99 years. The reserve price of both the sites was shown as Rs.9,000/- per square meter. Later on, the same was reduced to Rs.6,000/- per square meter.

       All bids were opened and it was found that bid of Rs.25,299/- per square meter given by Chunni Lal Chauhan for the site measuring 475.40 square meters was highest. However, instead of depositing 10% of the bid money as per the requirement, Chunni Lal Chauhan withdrew his bid on that very day. As a consequence, participation money of all other bidders including respondent No.1.

       In respect of the second site, the bid of Rs.6,551/-per square meter given by respondent No.1 was found to be highest. The representative of respondent No.1 who had already deposited Rs.60 lacs as participation money, deposited another sum of Rs.8,50,000/- to comply with the requirement of Clause 5(2) of the Regulations.

       Before the bid could be accepted by the Chief Executive Officer, the State Government intervened in the matter and the Additional Chief Secretary (Housing) directed the Chief Executive Officer not to accept the bids.

       The Chief Executive Officer decided to reject the bid of respondent No.1 on the ground that the rate offered by it was lower than the rate quoted for the other site.

       The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed order dated 24.2.2010.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned order is not sustainable.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

Judgment

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether Chief Executive Officer of the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the Chief Executive Officer') could reject the highest bid given by respondent No.1 in respect of commercial site measuring 9947 square meters situated at Parwanoo after it had deposited 10% of the bid money is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.607 of 2010.

3. The Chief Executive Officer invited sealed bids from the general public for allotment of institutional/industrial/school plots at Atal Shiksha Kunj, Kallujhanda (Baddi), Bhatolikalan (Baddi) and Basal at Solan and two commercial sites at Parwanoo, one measuring 475.40 square meters and the other measuring 9947 square meters on leasehold basis for 99 years. The reserve price of both the sites was shown as Rs.9,000/- per square meter. Later on, the same was reduced to Rs.6,000/- per square meter.

4. Respondent No.1 gave bids for both the commercial sites. One, Chunni Lal Chauhan, who was partner of respondent No.1 (averments to this effect have been made in paragraphs 3(i) and 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant to the counter affidavit of the respondents) also gave bid for the site measuring 475.40 square meters. The address disclosed in the bids given by respondent No.1 and Chunni Lal Chauhan was the same (an averment to this effect is contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the reply filed by the appellants to the writ petition of respondent No.1). Three other persons gave bids for the site measuring 9947 square meters. The rates quoted by four bidders were as under: Table

5. All the bids were opened on 8.2.2010 and it was found that bid of Rs.25,299/- per square meter given by Chunni Lal Chauhan for the site measuring 475.40 square meters was highest. However, instead of depositing 10% of the bid money as per the requirement of clause 5(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (Allotment, Sale of Houses, Flats and Plots) Regulations, 2004 (for short, `the Regulations'), Chunni Lal Chauhan withdrew his bid on that very day. As a consequence, participation money of all other bidders including respondent No.1, who had offered to pay Rs.20,335.00 per square meter was refunded. In respect of the second site, the bid of Rs.6,551/-per square meter given by respondent No.1 was found to be highest. The representative of respondent No.1 who had already deposited Rs.60 lacs as participation money, deposited another sum of Rs.8,50,000/- to comply with the requirement of Clause 5(2) of the Regulations. However, before the bid could be accepted by the Chief Executive Officer, the State Government intervened in the matter because it had received information that the second commercial site was being disposed of at a low price and vide letter dated 10.2.2010, the Additional Chief Secretary (Housing) directed the Chief Executive Officer not to accept the bids and also give clarification on the following points: (i) In what circumstances were sealed bids invited when normally one would expect an open auction process to be resorted to in order to maximize return. (ii) Given the value of the land what steps were taken to ensure wide dissemination of the sale in Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh and outside the State. (iii) What was the basis for the fixing of the reserve price and on what basis was it revised downwards.

6. The Chief Executive Officer sent reply dated 17.2.2010 and justified disposal of various sites/plots by inviting sealed bids, but after two days he decided to reject the bid of respondent No.1 on the ground that the rate offered by it was lower than the rate quoted for the other site. This was communicated to respondent No.1 in the form of order dated 24.2.2010.

7. Respondent No.1 challenged rejection of bid by filing a petition under Art

















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 Back to top