SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. S. Thakur, CJI., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Om Prakash Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chand Prashar & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5101 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19310 OF 2013
Decided On : 13-05-2016
(b) Government sale – Terms and conditions – Requirement to furnish Annual Turnover and Net Worth for last three years – Held not a mandatory condition – Only required for assessing paying capacity of the bidder – Committee members rightly exercising discretion to deviate from the condition – No error. (Para 11, 12)
(1991) 3 SSC 273 – Referred
Facts of the case:
On 03.11.2008, an advertisement was issued by Himachal Tourism inviting bids from interested parties for outright purchase of sites located at three places in Himachal Pradesh including Café Aabshar in District Solan situated at 3 kilometers from town named Kandaghat.
In so far as Café Aabshar was concerned, the appellant as well as respondent No.1 participated in the bid process. The bid submitted by the appellant for Rs.27,15,000/-was the highest. Respondent No.1 had given a bid of Rs. 17,00,000/-which was the 4th highest. The bid of the appellant having been found to be the highest, it was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued on 02.03.2010. Thereafter Sale Deed in respect of the Café was executed in favour of the appellant on 31.03.2010.
After the execution of the Sale Deed, respondent No.1 filed CWP in the High Court submitting that the appellant had not submitted his annual turnover and net worth for last three years as stipulated in the advertisement.
The Writ Petition was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court.
This decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Uday U. Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in L.P.A. No.441 of 2012 affirming the decision dated 14.08.2012 of the Single Judge of the High Court in CWP No.1557 of 2010.
3. On 03.11.2008, an advertisement was issued by Himachal Tourism inviting bids from interested parties for outright purchase of sites located at three places in Himachal Pradesh including Café Aabshar in District Solan situated at 3 kilometers from town named Kandaghat. The relevant conditions mentioned in the advertisement were as under:-
“A Bidder is free to bid for one or more than one cafes. However all bidders need to provide the following information for consideration of their EOI.
Area of business interests (please enclose firm profile or corporate brochure) Annual turnover & Net worth in last three (3) years (please submit audited financial statements and income Tax Return of last three financial years supporting this information).
Interest in particular café(s) and proposed usage.
Offer to “Outright purchase of the café” (a separate rate will be quoted for each café).”
4. In so far as Café Aabshar was concerned, the appellant as well as respondent No.1 participated in the bid process. The bid submitted by the appellant for Rs.27,15,000/-was the highest. Respondent No.1 had given a bid of Rs. 17,00,000/-which was the 4th highest. The bid of the appellant having been found to be the highest, it was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued on 02.03.2010. Thereafter Sale Deed in respect of the Café was executed in favour of the appellant on 31.03.2010.
5. After the execution of the Sale Deed, respondent No.1 who has been running a Dhaba next to the site, filed CWP No.1557 of 2010 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh submitting that the appellant had not submitted his annual turnover and net worth for last three years as stipulated in the advertisement. No allegation was made of any arbitrariness, bias, favoritism or malice in the auction process. The appellant filed his reply in opposition. An affidavit in reply was also filed by the State Government opposing the Writ Petition stating that the highest bid submitted by the appellant was rightly accepted after due consideration by the Committee comprising of high ranked officials and that the entire process was completely fair and transparent.
6. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 14.08.2012. It was observed that the condition regarding submission of the net worth was mandatory and the Committee could not have over-looked such condition. It was further observed that the Expert Committee had fixed the reserve price in respect of the Café at Rs.30,78,000/-while the bid submitted by the appellant at Rs.27,15,000/-was accepted. Interestingly, respondent No.1 himself had given a bid for Rs.17,00,000/-, far below the alleged reserve price. However, the Single Judge while accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Letter of Intent dated 02.03.2010 and Sale Deed dated 31.03.2010 and directed the authorities to re-do the entire process of selling said Café in accordance with law.
7. This decision of the Single Judge was challenged by the appellant by filing LPA No.441 of 2012. The Division Bench upheld the view taken by the Single Judge on both counts namely that offer of the appellant was below the reserve price and that the condition regarding submission of annual turnover and net worth for last three years was not complied with by the appellant. The Division Bench thus dismissed LPA No.441 of 2012 by its order dated 20.05.2013.
8. This appeal challenges the correctness of the decisions so rendered by the High Court. While issuing notice, this Court by order dated 04.07.2013 had directed that Status quo be maintained by the parties
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.