Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Jitender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
Challenge in the present petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure P-7) whereby the Administrator of the erstwhile Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Rohtak rejected the bid of the petitioners against the allotment of Hotel Site No.I and II, Sector-14, Sonepat.
2. In sum and substance the petitioners case is that they had deposited 2% of earnest money as required by the advertisement and bid being the highest one @ Rs.35,203/- per square meter was over and above the reserve price and, therefore, having deposited 10% of the bid amount the petitioners had a right to get issued the allotment letter. Resultantly, the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby the bid money was refunded of Rs.24,53,500/- by pay order was stated to be not justifiable.
3. Senior counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the cancellation of the bid was not justified and only the Chief Administrator, HUDA could have done so, who i
The highest bidder has no vested right if the auction concluded in his favor.
(1) Allotment of Industrial Plot – Ordinarily, when large areas of industrial land are auctioned, overall price would be separately assessed as compared to smaller plots – Merely because selling pric....
The authority in a tender process retains the right to cancel and invite new bids, with no vested rights for the highest bidder until official acceptance occurs.
The principle that the highest bid does not guarantee acceptance in tender processes, and the authority's discretion must be exercised based on relevant commercial considerations and adherence to pro....
The highest bidder does not have an indefeasible right without acceptance of the bid and issuance of an allotment letter. The refusal of the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favoritism, and the....
No vested right is established from bid submission; rejection of bid is valid when corporation ensures public interest and current market rates prevail.
The highest bidder in a public auction has no vested right to the auction outcome, and authorities retain discretion to reject bids.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article