The authority's right to reject bids without assigning reasons and the absence of an LoI indicating no privity of contract were the main legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondent, DDA to allot Plot No. D-37, Badgolla, Dwarka, New Delhi (`the subject Plot') since the Petitioner was the highest bidder in the e-auction held for the same and to direct the Respondent to accept the full and final amount of the Petitioner. Alternatively, it is prayed that the Respondent be directed to reconsider the cancellation of the Petitioner's highest bid.

2. Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Arun Birbal, learned standing counsel, appears for the Respondent, Delhi Development Authority (`DDA').

3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was declared the highest bidder vis a vis the subject Plot. He states that the Petitioner received an email dated 20.07.2022 from Respondent, DDA acknowledging that the Petitioner's bid was the highest. He states that however on 18.11.2022, without assigning any reason and in an arbitrary manner, the Respondent, DDA has rejected the Petitioner's highest bid and returned the earnest amount of Rs.11,01,943/- to the Petitioner herein. He states that the Petitioner has a bona fide need for a residential property in Delhi and therefore seeks this writ of mandamus.

4. In reply, learned standing counsel for the Respondent, DDA who appears on advance notice states that other plots in Dwarka region, whereby the subject Plot is located, were also placed for e-auction and the bids received for the said plots in Dwarka region are as under:

4.1. He states that the bid price received for the other plots in the same neighbourhood was higher as compared to the subject Plot. He states, therefore, after comparison and evaluation of the bids, the competent authority was of the opinion that the Petitioner's bid received for the subject Plot was not competitive, does not reflect the market value of the subject Plot and hence, the Petitioner's bid was rejected. He relies upon the bid information enlisted at column no. 6 of the table to substantiate the aforesaid plea. He states that the price realised for the subject Plot was substantially lower than the bid price received for the plots at S. Nos. 1 and 2.

5. He relies upon Clause 1.9 of the e-auction document, with special reference to chapter General Instructions to Bidders/Prospective Bidders, regarding the right of DDA to accept or reject the proposal, which reads as under:

"DDA reserves the right to accept or reject any or all of the proposals/e-bids without assigning any reason whatsoever and to take any measure as it may deem fit, including annulment of the bidding process, at any time prior to confirmation of bid, without liability or obligation for such acceptance, rejection or annulment."

(Emphasis supplied)

5.1. He states that the right to reject the bid was exercised by Respondent in accordance with Clauses 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the e-auction document, dealing with e-auction details for present auction, which reads as follows:

"2.4.1. The accepting officer, subject to confirmation of the VC, DDA, normally accept the highest Bid for a plot, provided that it is above the reserve price and found to be competitive enough to reflect the market value of the plot auctioned for.

2.4.2. The confirmation of the highest Bid shall be in the sole discretion of the Vice Chairman, DDA who does not bind himself to confirm the highest bid and reserve to himself the right to reject all or any of the bid without assignin