The main legal point established is that a public authority's actions in contractual matters, especially those involving public property, should not be arbitrary and must adhere to recognized norms and principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent in Letter No.A1/CHU040/2021 dated 07.01.2022 as illegal, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the plot in Sl.No.107 CHU 040 Commercial site at Kovaipudur measuring an extent of 78910 sq.ft. as notified in its notification dated 23.08.2021. )

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2022, cancelling the allotment issued in favour of the petitioner for plot Sl.No.107 CHU 040 Commercial site at Kovaipudur measuring an extent of 78910 sq.ft., as notified in its notification dated 23.08.2021.

2. The petitioner has participated in the tender for allotment of plots called for by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit, under the notification dated 23.08.2021. The subject plot Sl.No.107 CHU 040 Commercial site at Kovaipudur measures 78910 sq.ft. The upset price was fixed under the tender notification dated 23.08.2021 as Rs.9,36,67,000/-. The petitioner participated in the tender and submitted its bid for the aforementioned plot for Rs.9,41,00,000/- and he was a successful bidder. The petitioner’s bid was accepted by the respondents and as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner will have to pay 15% of the bid amount which is the EMD amount and it amounts to Rs.1,41,00,000/- which was paid by the petitioner for participating in the tender. Since the petitioner’s bid was accepted being the highest bidder as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner also paid 10% of the additional bid amount on 23.09.2021 amounting to Rs.94,25,000/-. In all put together, the petitioner has paid Rs.2,35,25,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.9,41,00,000/-.

3. The payment of the aforesaid amounts are not disputed by the respondents. However, by the impugned order dated 07.01.2022, the allotment of the plot granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents has been cancelled without assigning any reason. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:

(a) the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice

(b) the rejection of the petitioner’s bid by the impugned order was passed after 3 months and 15 days from the date of the auction. The price quoted by the petitioner is not below than the upset price fixed by the Department but it is much higher.

(c) 20 plots were offered for allotment and all the 20 allotments have been cancelled by the respondents in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason.

(d) the impugned order suffers from malafides on the part of the respondents and is arbitrary, which is unsustainable in law.

(e) the Price Fixation Committee of the respondents comprises of:

(i) The Managing Director of TNHB – the Chairperson

(ii) The Board Secretary

(iii) Financial Advisor and 2 members from the Accounts Department apart from 2 members of Accounts Department.

The Sale Confirmation Committee consists of:

(i) The Managing Director of TNHB – the Chairperson

(ii) The Board Secretary

(iii) Financial Advisor, who are also members of the Price Fixation Committee and hence, they cannot say that the upset price is not competitive.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on behalf of all the respondents and they would state that the petitioner having agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of sale, is now estopped from raising a plea that no reasons have been assigned for cancellation of allotment under the impugned order.

5. According to the respondents, under Clause 11 of