The court held that once a bid is accepted in a public auction, it cannot be invalidated based on subsequent complaints without evidence of fraud or collusion.

Order :

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has questioned legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby even after holding the Petitioner to be eligible for grant of lease the lease was not granted to him on the ground that the lease is for 30 years and the amount proposed by the Petitioner for grant of lease is very meager as such the lease cannot be granted.

2. In the writ petition, the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

“10.1 That this Hon’ble court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the respondent authorities and consider the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of the impugned order/letter.

10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to be pleased to issue a writ I the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 28/12/2011 (Annexure P-1).

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allot the open roof of Arpa Complex, measuring 5,690 square feet to the petitioner.

10.4 That in the alternative, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to return the amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 20% per annum.

10.5 This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, against the respondents.”

3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, Respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur invited an auction notice for grant of lease of the open roof of Arpa Complex situated opposite to Nav-Bharat Press near old Bus Stand, Bilaspur. The aforesaid auction notice was published in the display boards of the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur as well as in the office of the Collector, Bilaspur on 9.5.2006 and the same was also published in the local daily newspaper Haribhoomi, Navbharat and Dainik Bhaskar on 10.5.2006. Since the Petitioner was interested to participate in the process, he has deposited a sum of Rs.3,45,000 and has quoted rate of Rs.260 per square feet for grant of premium for the lease of the roof. After deposit of the amount, on 25.5.2006 the Petitioner was declared successful bidder and was directed further to deposit an amount of Rs.7,40,000 on 26.5.2006, which he has deposited vide cheque No.087571, as such in total a sum of Rs.10,85,000 has been deposited by the Petitioner. The matter was placed before the Mayor-in-Council on 25.5.2006 itself and the lease was approved by the Mayor-in- Council and it was placed before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, which has also confirmed the said proposal of lease on 16.9.2006 to be granted in favour of the Petitioner. Deceased Respondent No.4 Basant Sharma as well As Respondent No.5 Nandram Madawa have challenged the proposal to grant lease in favour of the Petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur in WP(PIL) No.6162 of 2006. The aforesaid writ petition of Respondents No.4 and 5 was disposed of with a direction by this Court vide its order dated 24.10.2007 to decide the representation of Respondents No.4 and 5 in light of Section 421 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1956’). In light of the order dated 24.10.2007, Respondents No.4 and 5 have moved a representation before the State. However, the State has forwarded the same to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur seeking a report in the said matter. The Petitioner has also made several representations for decision of the matter, however, the Municipal Corporation has not given any hint and the same has never been decided. Lastly, when the Petitioner gave a notice to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, in a very hurry and haste manner, without considering the real aspect of the matter vide the impugned order they have denied to give lease to the Petitioner