CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
Gajanand Sahu
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & other
Writ Petition (C) No. 1602 of 2012
Decided On: 07/01/2013
Constitution of India – Article 14 and 226 – Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 – Section 7 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Cancellation of Auction Proceedings – Relevant conditions, inter alia, in NIO was that bid will be opened in respect of Sundry Shops same time in respect of successful bidders will be required to deposit a sum of security amount within a period of 15 days from date of information – Successful bidders were required to deposit difference of caution money and security amount and bid amount after removal of boundaries and agreement was to be executed within a period of petitioners were successful bidders – Held, Competent authority, has scrutinized auction process and found that there was no sufficient competition and as such good price could not be obtained circumstances judicial review is not permissible as petitioners have failed to establish that decision was not bona fide and was also not in public interest – Whether it should interfere with decision of authority – Discretionary power should be exercised with great care and caution and only in furtherance of public interest – Authority has the right not to accept highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than highest bidder if there exist good and sufficient reasons highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that Authority action in accepting or refusing bid must be free from arbitrariness – Petitions dismissed.
1. W.P. (C) Nos. 1602, 1585, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 1690, 1691, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1831, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1862 and 1863 of 2012, involve common facts as well as one and the same question of law, require to be decided by common order.
2. The cause of action, in all these petitions, arose from the order dated 30-8-2012, whereby auction of 56 shops of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg (for short the Samiti), was cancelled.
3. As all the facts are common, the facts and documents referred in the first petition, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 1602/2012, are being taken for consideration.
4. The Samiti issued a notice inviting offer (for short the NIO) for leasing out 56 sundry shops in Navin Mandi Premises, Dhamdha Road, Durg on 7-1-2011 (Page 27). It was provided that the bid may be submitted by registered post on or before 29-1-2011 (Saturday) during office hours. There should be a separate bid for each sundry shop. The requisite fee will be deposited by 28-1-2011. The relevant conditions, inter alia, in the NIO was that the bid will be opened on 31-1-2011 at 11 O’clock in respect of Sundry Shops No.1 to 28 and on 1-2-2011 at the same time, in respect of Sundry Shops No. 29 to 56. The successful bidders will be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 03 lacs as security amount within a period of 15 days from the date of information. The successful bidders were required to deposit the difference of caution money (Dharohar Rashi) and the security amount (total Rs. 05 lacs) and the bid amount after removal of the boundaries, and the agreement was to be executed within a period of 30 days. The petitioners were the successful bidders. According to the petitioners, the security amount of Rs. 03 lacs was deposited within a period of 15 days from the date of information to them. The remaining amount could not be deposited and the agreement was also not executed.
5. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 30-8-2012 (Annexure P/1) was passed, quashing the auction in question. Subsequently, by letter dated 1-9-2012 (Annexure P/2), the petitioners were informed in respect of cancellation of the auction proceedings of 56 sundry shops. Thus, these petitioners.
6. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Advocate, with Shri Saurabh Jain & Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri Ashish Surana and Shri T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 03 lacs within a period of 15 days from the date they were informed by the Samiti. Initially, the petitioners were asked to deposit the difference of the total amount of bid. All the successful bidders formed an association namely; Krishi Upaj Mandi Vyapari Sangh, Durg (for short the Association) on 8-9-2011 (Annexure - P/7). The Coordinator of the Association informed the Secretary of the Samiti objecting demand of balance amount before completion of the developmental work. The Secretary of the Samiti by letter dated 10-9-2011 (Annexure - P/8) granted one more months time to deposit the required amount. On 28-9-2011 (Annexure - P/9), the Association wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Samiti not to demand the balance amount before developing the area. The Secretary of the Samiti issued a notice dated 25-10-2011 (Annexure - P/10) that new notices for depositing the balance amount will be issued after the work in the area is complete. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no reason to cancel the auction wherein the petitioners had offered the price much above the reserved price i.e. minimum price, fixed for the shop and they have also deposited the security amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs within a period of 15 days. The remaining amount could not be deposited, as the Secretary of the Samiti himself ha
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.