The authority conducting an auction has the right to reject the highest bid and the decision-making process must be fair and reasonable.

JUDGMENT

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against cancellation/rejection of their bid by order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the respondent- Corporation.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the respondent - Corporation invited small & medium scale businessmen to bid for plots situated in RIICO Industrial Area, Gogelav, Nagaur. The advertisement dated 31.12.2021 in this regard was issued. The petitioners filed applications and deposited EMD with respect to the various plots.

3. Pursuant to the advertisement, e-auction for the plots in question was conducted on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022. After conclusion of the e-auction, the petitioners were placed at rank one in the bid process, as their bids were highest for the plot concerned.

4. It is alleged that one of the bidders for other plots made complaints regarding inability to bid for the plots in question and that he was prepared to purchase the plots at higher rates. The respondent - RIICO by its order dated 02.02.2022 rejected the bids of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners made representations regarding cancellation of the bids, however, no response was received and feeling aggrieved on account of rejection of the bid, the present writ petitions have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that pursuant to the advertisement, e-auction was held, wherein various bidders participated for large number of plots. Qua the disputed plots, the petitioners were the highest bidders and based on which, they were entitled for allotment of the plots in question. However, the RIICO for no apparent reason and based on a purported complaint, has rejected the bids, which is not justified.

7. Submissions were made that once the auction process was initiated, as the bid made by the petitioners is more than the base rate fixed for the particular plot, it is not open for the RIICO to thereafter cancel the said auction on the purported ground of other plots in question having fetched higher amount.

8. Learned counsel further made submissions that even in cases where similar plots' bid made is for higher amounts, the said amounts have not been deposited, which clearly shows that the bid made by the petitioners was reasonable and the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained and therefore, the petitions be allowed and rejection of the petitioners' bid be quashed and set-aside.

9. A reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, raising preliminary objection that the bidders have no right to question the action of the respondents with regard to the cancellation of the bids, inasmuch as, the respondent-Corporation has reserved its right to accept any offer or to reject all or any bid without assigning any reason.

10. Further submissions have been made that issue in this regard stand settled by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and as such, no interference was required in the matter.

11. Learned counsel made further submissions with reference to the minutes of the e-auction held on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022 filed as Annexure-R/1, wherein the committee after observing that out of total 75 plots put in e-auction, 60 plots received multiple bids, 11 plots received single bids and no bids were received for 04 plots. The committee recommended for rejection of single bids for 11 plots as 'first time bids have been invited and no competition has taken place.' It rejected multiple bids for 11 plots as committee had recommended rejection of single bids having rates of 1210-1260 per m2, for 16 plots having range 1270-1500 per m2 as there was significant variation in the rates having range 1210 to 3000 sqm., the plots having bid rate 1500 per sqm. and less was 38 and plots having rates about 1500 per sqm. was 33 and half of the maximum rate quoted was 1500 per sqm. upto 21 bidders for the same plot and therefore, the bids were rejected for plots where the rates w