The integrity of public auctions must be upheld, and cancellations without substantive justification infringe upon the rights of highest bidders.

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein were the writ petitioners in W.P. No.3872/2022 filed before Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, assailing the cancellation of the auction of Plot No.P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 square meters situated at Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad which auction was conducted by the respondent - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited (“MIDC”, for the sake of convenience). The said writ petition was heard along with W.P. No.1324/2023 filed by the respondent-Pratik Group. By the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court observed as under:

“14. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that Writ Petition No.3872 of 2022 lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. We further direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to start fresh bidding process in relation to the property being plot No.P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 square meters situated in Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad.

15. As far as Writ Petition No.1324 of 2023 is concerned, we are of the view that in view of dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, present Writ Petition can be disposed of in terms of prayer clause (A) (ii) which reads as under:-

“(A)(ii) Issue fresh tender process in respect of the writ plot i.e. No.P-4/2, admeasuring 4800 sq. mtrs situated in Chikhalthana Industrial Area, Aurangabad by giving time bound scheduled.”

3. Being aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P. No.3872/2022 are before this Court.

4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the contesting respondents at length. We have also perused the material on record.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-MIDC by way of e-bidding notice dated 20.01.2022, initiated a tender process for the allocation of industrial, commercial and residential plots across various industrial areas in Maharashtra, including Plot No. P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 sq. mtrs. situated in Chikalthana Industrial Area, Aurangabad (‘subject plot’) through a centralised e-bidding system. As per the said tender notice, the bid submission window remained open from 21.01.2022 at 11:00 a.m. until 04.02.2022 up to 5:00 p.m. It also stipulated a two-way bid system, including submission of a technical bid in Envelope A and a commercial bid in Envelope B.

6. The appellants herein, by way of an application for the allocation of the subject plot, proposed a bid amount of Rs.16,299/- per square meter and deposited earnest money of Rs.12,55,120/- along with their application. Subsequently, by way of an intimation email dated 11.02.2022, the appellants herein were declared as the highest bidders. In the absence of any intimation regarding the deposit of the balance amount, the appellants sent an email to the respondent-MIDC, requesting the issuance of a Letter of Allotment in favour of the appellants with respect to the subject plot.

7. However, respondent-MIDC by way of office note bearing No. MIDC/IFMS/HQ/IT/IT CELL/2022 dated 02.03.2022, cancelled the aforesaid e-bidding process and invited a fresh tender for six plots, including the subject plot herein, on account of having received multiple complaints concerning the e-bidding process in respect of the said plots.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred W.P. No. 3872/2022 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking certain reliefs.

9. Meanwhile, respondent No.4-Pratik Group also filed Writ Petition No.1324/2023 before the High Court seeking directions to be issued to the respondent-MIDC to open and consider the rate quotation of the said firm in respect of the subject plot and in the alternative, sought a fresh tender process to be issued in respect of the said plot. In the said writ petition, the appellants herein preferred an intervention application bearing Civi