The authority's right to cancel an auction, interpretation of terms within the bidding process, and reservation of rights for rejection of bidders or bids without assigning any reason.

1. Leave is granted to submit supplementary affidavit to the writ petition, which is kept on record.

2. Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner and also Mr. Siddique, learned counsel representing the State of West Bengal.

3. In ventilating the grievance of the writ petitioner Mr. Chatterjee argued that pursuant to the Auction notice dated 5th December, 2017 published for Sand Mining Blocks in several sites in the district of Burdwan, his client being interested for the site ‘Galsi II’ had participated in the bidding process. Submitted that his client became the highest bidder in the bidding process by offering Rs.50,02,000/-, which was above the official bidding price. Submitted further that although the writ petitioner became the highest bidder and although at the initial stage he had participated by depositing 10% of the bidding money and he was supposed to deposit 1/3rd of the balance after completion of the bidding process, but as because the authority became absolutely silent without allowing him to deposit, the writ petitioner on 4th January, 2018 submitted prayer for issuance of letter of intent addressing to the District Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman. The District Magistrate instead of issuance of letter of intent cancelled the Auction without assigning any reason, which gives rise to arbitrariness in violating the principle of natural justice.

4. In submitting the supplementary affidavit Mr. Chatterjee also ventilated that though the earlier Auction was cancelled without assigning any reason, meanwhile fresh E-Auction has been notified inviting tender on 11th January, 2018 for the self-same site by fixing date of Auction on 31st January, 2018. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that while the writ petitioner became the highest bidder in the bidding process, the authorities could not cancel the earlier Auction without assigning any reason and they could not go with further Auction, for which they have circulated new E-Auction notice and therefore, the writ petition should be allowed with the prayer as sought for. In support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee invited attention to the provisions laid down in Rule 9 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 and the case of State of Punjab –vs- Bandeep Singh & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 724.

5. Mr. Siddique per contra inviting attention to the terms and conditions laid down in the notice of E-Auction, submitted that the writ petitioner along with other bidders while participated in the bidding process knowing fully well with the terms and conditions laid down therein, could not challenge either of those conditions laid down in that Auction notice. Submitted that it is within the domain of the authority, as to whether they would proceed further with the Auction for which notice was circulated or whether they would rescind or cancel for taking fresh steps or not and for which, according to him, reason must not be assigned.

6. Mr. Siddique by handing over some Auction I.D.s relating to some other sites including the present site, tried to impress upon the Court that in the disputed site only three bidders were available, which would be apparent from the I.D. put against the bidder’s name and therefore, three blocks were cancelled and the bidding process in respect of two blocks were accepted.

7. Mr. Siddique in support of his submission relied upon the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. –vs- North-East Frontier Railway & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 760.

8. Consulted Auction Rules (supra) and the cases cited at the Bar. It appears that after completion of the bidding process, Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 9 lays down that the successful bidder shall be declared by the District Committee. At the very outset the Court observes that it has not been mentioned in the Rule that the highest bidder shall have to be declared by the District Committee, rather, the qualifying term is “Successful Bidder”. It is, t