SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
York Tech Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10124 of 2022 and CM Appl. 29396 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022




A letter of intent signifies acceptance of a bid, forming a binding contract. Subsequent withdrawal due to administrative reasons must be justifiable and non-arbitrary under contractual principles.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tender Law - Withdrawal of a plot from auction after acceptance of the highest bid - The letter of intent represents a formal acceptance creating a binding contract, and subsequent withdrawal based on plot size variation exceeding 15% cannot be justified - The authority must abide by principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in public contracts. (Paras 8, 19, 31, 53)

(B) Administrative Action - Contractual Nature - A public authority's power to annul a bidding process must be exercised within the law and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory - Acceptance of a bid establishes a contract, necessitating compliance with subsequent procedural requirements. (Paras 19, 25, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner bid for a plot in an online auction, was accepted through a letter of intent, yet the authority later withdrew the plot claiming it was due to a size variation beyond allowed limits. The petitioner had already paid required deposits, accepted a smaller plot size, and followed protocol.

Findings of Court:
The authority's actions were arbitrary and unjustified; the plot was to be allotted post compliance with payment obligations.

Issues: The primary legal question was the validity of the withdrawal of the plot after acceptance of the bid and the nature of the obligations created by the letter of intent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the issuance of the letter of intent constituted acceptance of the bid, thus forming a concluded contract. The respondent could not withdraw the plot after this acceptance.

Result: Petition allowed; the withdrawal letter quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks writs against dda's decision. (Para 1)
2. background of e-auction and bid acceptance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments for petitioner on the contract existence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. respondent counters with contractual nature. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court analysis of withdrawal authority. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. limits on arbitrary rejection by public authorities. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. justifications for dda's withdrawal analyzed. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. petitioner's readiness to comply with bid despite plot size issue. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. obligations post-bid acceptance clarified. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
10. consistency with earlier rulings on contract terms. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
11. implications of loi and tender conditions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
12. judicial review parameters and public interest. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
13. court quashes dda withdrawal and directs compliance. (Para 51 , 52)
14. conclusion of favor for petitioner. (Para 53)
15. final order to allow petition. (Para 54)

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

    "1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other Writ or direction in the nature thereof thereby quashing the Respondent's letter dated 01.06.2022, vide which the Respondent has cancelled the auction and the bid by the Petitioner, and withdrawn the said plot of land from Auction;

    2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent authority to consider and treat the deposit by the Petitioner as a fit and valid deposit as per the requirements towards the grant, through auction of the plot of land being A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar, Delhi, and direct the Respondent Authority to accept the remaining bid value and execute a deed of conveyance qua the subject plot in favour of the Petitioner Company;

    3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authority to withdraw the Plot A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar, Delhi, from 16th Phase of Mega E-auction announced/advertised on 12.06.2022 by Respondent/DDA;

    4. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA), came out with the 14th phase of e-auction for the sale of Industrial plots in December 2021, under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981. The plot with which the petitioner is concerned is A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said plot) for which reserved price was fixed as Rs.4,78,48,000/-. The last date for submission of bid along with 5% EMD of the reserve price was 24.12.2021. On 22.12.2021, the Petitioner filed an online application for participating in the e-auction with respect to the said plot along with the 5% of reserve price /first stage EMD i.e., Rs.23,92,400/-.

3. The e-auction was conducted on 29.12.2021 and the petitioner submitted its bid for an amount of Rs.10,91,48,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.4,78,48,000/- in respect of the said plot. The petitioner was informed by the respondent vide email dated 30.12.2021 that it had emerged as the highest bidder, however, it was clearly stated in the said email that the bid was "subject to acceptance by the department/corporation".

4. Thereafter the respondent issued a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as LOI) dated 18.04.2022 to the petitioner accepting the bid of the petitioner, and requesting the petitioner to pay the differential amount i.e., the amount by which 25% of quoted price exceeds the first stage EMD within a period of 7 days i.e., second stage EMD. The said communication dated 18.04.2022 clearly stated that "your bid for the plot has been accepted by the Delhi Development Authority". In the said LOI it was also made clear that in case the second stage EMD is not submitt









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top