The highest bidder is not entitled to the issuance of a Regular Letter of Allotment unless the bid is accepted by the competent authority. The rejection of the bid by the competent authority must be in public interest and not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction dated 18.02.2019 and had deposited the requisite 10% of the bid amount for the purpose of issuance of Regular Letter of Allotment. The said allotment letter had not been issued despite the petitioner making various requests and efforts. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash letter dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) intimating the petitioner that the bid has not been accepted and thereafter letter dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure P-4) declaring the petitioner unsuccessful in the auction by the Deputy General Manager (C&H), Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.-respondent No. 3, which according to the petitioner is an incompetent authority, without assigning any reason or granting an opportunity of hearing, which action being arbitrary, illegal, perverse, without jurisdiction, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice deserve to be set aside. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed directing the respondents to issue him the Regular Letter of Allotment being a successful bidder in the voice auction of Commercial Towers (Tower/Block-D) in IMT/Export Complex at Panipat, held on 18.02.2019.

2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner, in pursuance to the allotment scheme floated by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC), Panchkula, of Commercial Towers IMT/Export Complex at Manesar and Panipat through voice auction to be held on 18.02.2019, applied for the same by depositing an amount of Rs. 15 lakh as earnest money through demand draft dated 14.02.2019. Petitioner participated in the voice auction and offered a bid of Rs. 6.25 crore for site mentioned at Sr. No. 2 of the brochure i.e. Tower/Block-D of Commercial Towers in IMT/Export Complex at Panipat measuring 1728 square meters. As per the petitioner, the auction committee of HSIIDC, finding it very less, asked the petitioner to increase the bid, which the petitioner enhanced to Rs. 7 crore. However, after negotiations, petitioner raised the bid to Rs. 8 crore to get the site, which was, according to him, accepted by the auction committee. Petitioner, being a successful bidder, was asked by the auction committee to deposit 10% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 80 lakh after adjusting the amount of earnest money deposit. Petitioner, accordingly, deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 65 lakh by way of RTGS on 20.02.2019 in the account of HSIIDC in Union Bank of India, Chandigarh. Rest of the amount was to be paid as per the schedule after issuance of the Regular Letter of Allotment by the respondents as per the terms and conditions of the auction brochure, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.

3. Petitioner waited for issuance of Regular Letter of Allotment and had been contacting the respondents every now and then. To the surprise of the petitioner, after a gap of more than eight months, he received a letter dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Deputy General Manager (C&H)-respondent No. 3, requiring the petitioner to furnish bank account details for refund of RTGS made on 20.02.2019 in pursuance to the bid dated 18.02.2019 as the said bid had not been accepted. No reasons were mentioned in the said letter for the non-acceptance of the bid. The said communication being arbitrary, without any basis and justification, shocked the petitioner.

4. Petitioner approached the respondents various times requesting for withdrawal of the illegal letter dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) and for issuance of the allotment letter. When nothing came out of the efforts of the petitioner, he submitted a representation dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure P-3) before the Chief Minister, Haryana, highlighting his grievance which was referred to the Managing Director, HSIIDC, to take a decision in the meeting of the Board of Directors. Petitioner ultimately has received a lette