No vested right is established from bid submission; rejection of bid is valid when corporation ensures public interest and current market rates prevail.

JUDGMENT :

PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 20^th August 2025, whereby the respondent rejected the petitioner’s bid in respect of Plot No. 8A, Sector-13, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai (in short, “the plot”).

2. The brief facts relevant for this petition are as follows:

(a) Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent, the petitioner submitted its bid for allotment of the plot. The petitioner deposited Rs.1.50 crores towards Earnest Money Deposit (in short, “EMD”) on 23^rd July 2024. An auction was conducted, in which the petitioner’s bid of Rs. 1,70,098/- per sq mt was declared as the highest bid for the plot. However, the allotment letter was not issued. Upon enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the respondent had decided to withhold the issuance due to certain pending litigation, which ultimately came to be resolved on 10^th June 2025.

(b) On 16^th June 2025, the petitioner addressed a letter requesting the respondent to issue the allotment letter, followed by a reminder on 11^th August 2025. By the impugned order dated 20^th August 2025, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s bid stating that the rate quoted by the petitioner was more than a year old and substantially below the prevailing market potential. The respondent also recorded that no right accrued in favour of the petitioner merely by submission of its bid. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:

“1. Considering the current market potential, there would be a considerable loss to the public exchequer, if the Plot No.8A, Sector-13, Kalamboli is allotted to M/s. Diti Developers today at rs.1,70,098- per Sqm i.e. at last year’s rate under Scheme No.MM/SCH-39/2024-25 as the Corporation has received highest rate of Rs.2,05,205/- per Sqm for Plot No.14, Sector 9E in the same Kalamboli Node which is an adjacent sector in current Scheme No.44/2025-26. It is to be noted that the rate received now is 20% higher than the last year rates.

2. Accordingly, the bid of M/s. Diti Developers for the subject plot is hereby rejected.”

3. Mr. Udeshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the cancellation of the bid is arbitrary and contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He contended that the respondent, could not have cancelled the bid once it was accepted by the respondent in a public auction. There is no basis for the respondent’s conclusion that issuing the allotment letter would result in a loss, by comparing the bid amount with prices in an adjacent area. He also argued that in the alternative the refund of the EMD ought to be directed and the respondent ought to pay interest at the same rate at which it levies penal charges on defaulting bidders.

4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. We find no merit in the petition. Clauses 6 and 13 of the tender document are relevant and read as under:

“6) In case if numbers of bids received for any particular Plot is less than three, then the final decision on such allotment will be taken by the Corporation and the same shall be binding on concerned bidders. These offers may either be accepted or rejected and until final decision is taken, the EMD amount of these bidders will not be refunded. Corporation reserves the right to cancel, amend, revoke, modify the conditions of the scheme at its discretion or reject any or all offers/plots without assigning any reasons thereof. In case of cancellation of the plot/scheme, bidder will not have any say.

13) The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, CIDCO reserves all rights to reject/cancel any or all bids/plots without assigning any reason thereof.”

5. It is evident that the tender expressly reserves the respondent’s