The highest or sole bidder in an e-auction of public property lacks an indefeasible right to bid acceptance. Authorities retain the discretion to reject bids to maximize revenue and ensure fair market value, provided the decision is transparent, reasonable, and free from manifest arbitrariness or mala fides.

Order :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the rejection letters/orders dated 30.04.2026 and 01.05.2026 passed by respondent No. 3.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, issued an e-auction programme for the sale of various residential/commercial plots, including the property in question, i.e., Plot No. K165 (Corner Plot), Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subject Plot'), which was listed at Serial No. 40.

3. The petitioner participated in the e-auction for the Subject Plot and accordingly submitted his bid. After the closure of the bid process, the petitioner sought official confirmation via e-mails dated 23.04.2026 and 27.04.2026. Upon seeking the said confirmation, the petitioner was orally informed that his bid had been rejected.

4. Subsequently, upon detailed representations dated 28.04.2026 and 02.05.2026 filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 issued letters dated 30.04.2026 and 01.05.2026, wherein it was stated that the petitioner's bid was rejected under Condition 12 of the terms and conditions of the e-auction and Rule 14 , Annexure- A, Clause (j) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1974"), since the Subject Plot K-165 had not fetched its appropriate value as the opposite Plot No. K-166 sold in e-auction held in November 2025 @ Rs. 79,500/-.

5. Upon a query being made to learned counsel for the petitioner by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner was the sole bidder in respect of the e-auction of the Subject Plot K-165.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Authorities have arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's bid despite his being the sole and highest bidder for the Subject Plot. He further submits that the alleged reason for rejection of the bid vis-a-vis Condition 12 of the terms and conditions of the e-auction as well as Rule 14 , Annexure-A, Clause (j) of the Rules of 1974 is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the discretion of the Chairman cannot be arbitrary. He further submits that the reason for rejection of the bid qua inadequate bid amount or auction did not realize the potential value similar to the opposite Plot No. K-166 is also contrary to the mandate of the law. He, therefore, prays that the rejection letters/orders dated 30.04.2026 and 01.05.2026 may be quashed and set aside among other consequential prayers.

7. In order to buttress his contention, he places reliance upon a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kamla Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , S.B. CWP No.15608/2025 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Golden Food Products India Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , 2026 SCC Online SC 24.

8. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

9. The fundamental objective of an e-auction is to guarantee transparency, encourage competition, and maximize revenue through the active participation of multiple bidders. Where an auction elicits a response from merely a single bidder, the process is divested of its inherent competitive character. To accept the bid of a sole bidder, particularly when adequate bid amount is not quoted in comparison to the previous auction held in t