IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fairness and reasonableness in state actions, particularly in contractual matters, and the need for judicial review to ensure compliance with these principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. These appeals arise from common order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenge to the action of the appellant in cancellation of the auction proceedings towards allotment of plots to intending allottees under a scheme of the Housing Board.

3. Appellant had floated an advertisement dated 26.03.2012 initiating process of auction of the plots developed by the appellant-Housing Board for public benefits. The respondents-writ petitioners participated in the auction proceedings and offered bid prices for respective plots of their choices. The auction was concluded and as per the terms and conditions of the auction notice, the successful bidders/respondents-writ petitioners deposited 15% of the bid amount offered by them. While the successful bidders were expecting confirmation letters and allotment of respective plots upon deposit of the balance amount, they came to know that the entire auction proceedings, for all the plots which were auctioned under auction notice dated 26.03.2012, have been cancelled.

4. Aggrieved of the said decision taken by the appellant-Housing Board whereby, the entire auction proceedings were cancelled, petitions were filed. Challenge to the decision of the Housing Board to cancel the auction proceedings was assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioners had submitted their offers, which were treated as highest auction in respect of the respective plots for which their offer was submitted and all those offers were invariably higher than the Minimum Sale Price (‘MSP’ for short) fixed by the Housing Board itself and in absence of there being any concrete reason, cancellation of the auction proceedings was arbitrary and irrational.

5. The action of the cancellation was sought to be defended by the appellants, by filing a common reply in two writ petitions, stating that even though auctions were held after determining the MSP in the year 2012 but the Chairman of the Board found that the bids received and tentatively accepted by the Board on the spot were marginally above the MSP fixed and, therefore, a decision was taken on records and files to drop the auction proceedings determining new MSP and then to go for a fresh auction.

6. The stand taken by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was rejected. The learned Single Judge held that once the intending purchasers/writ petitioners had emerged as successful bidders in respect of their respective plots and the bid price offered by them was invariably higher than the MSP, there was no reason why the auction proceedings should be cancelled. It was also found on facts that 15% of the bid amount offered by respondents-writ petitioners was also accepted upon completion of the auction proceedings and thus, there was no violation of any of the terms and conditions of auction. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that once the auction proceedings are concluded and 15% advance is deposited, it amounts to acceptance of offer, giving rise to a concluded contract.

7. The writ petition was accordingly allowed by the impugned order and the appellant was directed to finalize the allotment of plots in question in favour of the writ petitioners, subject to writ petitioners depositing the balance amount.

8. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Housing Board would vehemently contend before us that the directions of the learned Single Judge to accept the bid amount of the respondents-writ petitioners, despite cancellation of bid, is grossly illegal and unsustainable in law. He would submit that it is not a case where the allotment of plots had taken place after accepting the full amount. He would submit that before the bid amount offered by the writ petitioners could be accepted by the competent authority, it came up for consideration that present are the cases where the minimum sale price would require revision and, t