IMPORTANT POINT
The highest bidder does not have a vested right to have their bid accepted, and CIDCO had the discretion to reject bids based on market prices and tender conditions.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the present Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs :-

“a) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, holding the impugned cancellation letter dated 08.12.2021 issued by Respondent no.4 invalid and void ab initio;

b) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing Respondent no.3 to issue an allotment letter in respect of the subject plot in favour of the Petitioner in view of the auction result in which the Petitioner has been declared as the highest bidder;”

4. The facts, in order to appreciate the controversy at hand, lie within a very narrow compass, and shorn of unnecessary details are as follows, viz.

(i) City and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (“CIDCO”) joined through Respondent Nos.2 to 4 had in the year 2021-22 published Scheme No.MM/SCH-18A/2021-22 for the sale through E-tender of several plots of land including Plot No.B (130+131), Sector 13, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, having an area of 117.53 sq. mts. (“the said plot”).

(ii) The Petitioner placed its bid of Rs.43,333/- for the said plot on 12th October 2021 against the reserve price of Rs.26,202/-. The Petitioner also on the same day made payment of the Earnest Money Deposit (“EMD”) of Rs.3,07,952/-, which was duly accepted by the CIDCO.

(iii) Thereafter, on 19th October 2021, the Petitioner was declared the highest bidder in respect of the said plot. As per the terms of the process manual issued by CIDCO, Respondent No.3 was to issue an allotment letter within 3 days. Since the Petitioner did not receive any allotment letter in the prescribed time, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 3rd December 2021 to Respondent No.2 requesting for issuance of such allotment letter since the Petitioner has been declared as the highest bidder.

(iv) It was in response to the aforesaid letter that the Petitioner received the Impugned Communication dated 8th December 2021 addressed by Respondent No.4 to the Petitioner by which the Petitioner was informed that the Petitioner’s bid had been rejected. It is this communication that the Petitioner has impugned.

5. Ms. Agarwal, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the CIDCO had acted in a completely arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner by rejecting the Petitioner’s bid in the manner that they had done. She submitted that CIDCO had previously attempted twice to auction the said plot and both attempts had proved unsuccessful. She submitted that CIDCO had thus revised the reserve price to Rs.26,202/- per sq. mts. and that despite the fact that the Petitioner’s bid of Rs.43,333/- per sq. mts. was Rs.17,131/- higher than the reserve price, its bid was not accepted. She submitted that though the Petitioner had been declared the highest bidder, CIDCO had gone on to reject the Petitioner’s bid in the most arbitrary and cryptic manner without assigning any reason or even giving any opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard. She submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid was therefore not only arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable but also in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Ms. Agarwal then submitted that CIDCO had by rejecting the Petitioner’s bid caused a loss to the public exchequer. In support of her contention, she first invited our attention to a handwritten note dated 27th August 2021 on the Proposal for Scheme No.18-A dated 12th August 2021 which recorded that the expected revenue from the present scheme was Rs.55.56 Crores. She then pointed out that the present scheme had put up 143 plots for auction, out of which bids were received for only 70 plots and the scheme remained fruitless for the balance 73 plots. She submitted that out of the 7