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) 1135

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & 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

Advocate 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:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority Act, 2004 - Section 3 – transfer of land – quash - Chief Executive Officer of Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority hereinafter referred to as Chief Executive Officer could reject highest bid given by respondent respect of commercial site measuring square meters situated at after it had deposited bid money is question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order passed by Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Executive Officer invited sealed bids from general public for allotment of institutional industrial school plots at two commercial sites at Parwanoo one measuring square meters and other measuring square meters on leasehold basis –Held, Court and rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court which have remained uncontroverted show that respondent manipulated offer of lower price - Given bids for both sites and one of its partners namely gave bid for smaller plot - Highest bid for smaller site was given by but without any rhyme and reason he withdrew his offer on same day - Respondent whose bid was next highest did not press for acceptance of its bid and willingly accepted refund of participation money - This was quite unusual - For other site bid of respondent was higher than other bids by few hundred rupees only maximum difference being - State Government must have sensed mischief and realized that an attempt was being made to grab commercial site measuring square meters with huge potential for development plot is situated far away from second commercial site for which respondent had given bid of per square meter - Third document relates to plot measuring square meters - For this plot leasehold rights were given at rate per square meter - This plot was taken by owner of house for laying access road - Last transaction by HIMUDA involves sale of plot measuring square meters - This plot was sold in at rate per square meter - View none of transactions can be relied upon for nullifying decision Chief Executive Officer to reject bid of respondent because size and location of various plots were different last one of which was sold more than two years and almost six months prior to consideration bid given by respondent – 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 4 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:

S.No. Name of the Bidder Reserve Price Rates per Sqm. Quoted Participation Bid

Money Deposited

1. M/s. HPR INFRA Rs. 6000/- Rs. 6,131/- Rs. 60.00 lacs

2. M/s. Universal Estates Rs. 6000/- Rs. 6,551/- Rs. 60.00 lacs

3. M/s. Bansal Industries Rs. 6000/- Rs. 6,022/- Rs. 60.00 lacs

4. M/s. Aggarwal Sales Corporation Rs. 6000/- Rs. 6,101/- Rs. 60.00 lacs

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

















































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