The main legal point established in the judgment is that the state cannot act arbitrarily, irrationally, and unreasonably, and that a concluded contract prevents one party from canceling an e-auction.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10124/2022 allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein by quashing the letter dated 01.06.2022 issued by the Appellant/DDA withdrawing the Plot No.A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `plot in question') from the e-auction which was concluded in favour of the Respondent herein, the instant LPA has been filed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the filing of the instant LPA are as under:

a) In December, 2021, the Appellant/DDA came out with the 14th phase of e-auction for the sale of industrial plots. The plot in question i.e., Plot No.A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar, Delhi was also put to auction for which the reserved price was fixed as Rs.4,78,48,000/-. As per the terms and conditions, the bid had to be submitted along with 5% EMD of the reserve price on 24.12.2021.

b) The Respondent herein participated in the e-auction and submitted its bid along with 5% EMD of the reserve price. The e-auction was conducted on 29.12.2021 and the Respondent's bid for an amount of Rs.10,91,48,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.4,78,48,000/- was the highest bid. Thereafter, a letter of intent dated 18.04.2022 was issued in favour of the Respondent accepting the bid of the Respondent and it was directed to pay the differential amount i.e., the amount by which 25% of the quoted price exceeds the first stage EMD, within a period of 7 days. The said amount was to be deposited by 24.04.2022 or with penalty by 26.04.2022. The Respondent deposited the amount as sought for by the Appellant/DDA on 22.04.2022.

c) Later, it was found by the Respondent herein that though the area of the plot in question was announced to be as 400 sq. m., however, on actual verification it measures approximately 330 sq. m. However, the Respondent did not raise any issue and it was prepared to pay the entire amount of money which was for 400 sq.m. and take a smaller plot measuring 330 sq. m.

d) The Respondent, thereafter, received a letter dated 01.06.2022 from the Appellant/DDA wherein it was informed that the auction of the plot in question has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent herein approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 10124/2022.

e) It was contended by the Respondent herein (Petitioner therein) before the learned Single Judge that the Respondent was prepared to accept a smaller plot and was also prepared to pay the entire amount. The Respondent relied upon Clause I (3) of Chapter-III which is the General Terms and Conditions of the E-Auction and lays down that the area of industrial plots announced are only approximate, and the persons whose bids are accepted should be prepared to accept variation up to 15% either way in the area announced, subject to adjustment of cost in proportion to the amount of the accepted bid.

f) It was contended by the Appellant/DDA (Respondent therein) before the learned Single Judge that since the variation was more than 15%, the auction for the plot in question was cancelled. Reliance was also placed upon Clause 1.8 of General Instructions to bidders and Clause 2.6 of Chapter I of Tender Document to contend that the DDA had the right to reject any/all proposals and e-bids without assigning any reason whatsoever to the bidder.

g) The learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 31.10.2022 (impugned herein) allowed the writ petition and held that the letter of intent issued in favour of the Respondent was a clear and unequivocal acceptance/confirmation of the bid submitted by the Respondent herein and resulted in a concluded contract between the parties, and therefore, it was incumbent on the Appellant/DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter as mandated under conditions of the auction. The learned Single Judge held that the Respondent was prepared to purchase a smaller plot than the one announced in the auction. The learned Single Judge hel