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 decision to reject the bids must be based on valid reasons to ensure that public money is not squandered.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The present judgment shall dispose of 9 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos, 9502, 10993, 18692, 25786, 11574, 13926, 12776, 14989 and 19487 of 2022, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts have been taken from CWP-9502-2022, M/s. S.K. Woollen Mills and others vs. State of Haryana and others.

2. The prayer in the present writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of directions to allot the industrial plots in categories 4050 sq. mts. and 7875 sq. mts. in the Industrial Estate, Panipat in pursuance of the auction notice dated 04.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) being the highest bidders during the online bidding process. The ground taken is that the respondents, without any reason, have cancelled the allotments/booking of the plots and rejected the case of the petitioners and resultantly, order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) is sought to be challenged by writ in the nature of certiorari. A perusal of the said communication, which is by way of e-mail, would go on to show that the respondent No.2-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (in short 'HSIIDC') had informed the petitioners that their bids in the aforementioned categories have not been accepted by the competent authority and the earnest money deposit (EMD) was being refunded.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that on 04.11.2021, announcement of e-auction of various industrial plots was done including the plots at Panipat. The tentative rate was fixed at Rs.8,800/- per sq. mt. and the earnest money deposit was at 5%. The amount worked out to Rs.17,82,000/- for the plots measuring 4050 sq. mts. whereas for the plots measuring 7875 sq. mts., the EMD worked out at Rs.34,65,000/-. The processing fees was fixed at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for the two categories, respectively. The successful bidder had to complete 10% payment at H-1 bid within 72 hours of intimation, failing which, the 5% of the EMD was to be forfeited as per the eauction brochure (Annexure P-2). The relevant clauses 9(h) and 9(i) of the brochure read thus:-

“h. The successful bidders have to complete 10% payment (after adjusting the EMD amount deposited at the time of registration) at H-1 bid price within 72 hours of intimation by the HSIIDC after getting approval of the competent authority for acceptance of H-1 bids, failing which 5% EMD deposited at the time of registration shall stand forfeited. No extension of time for deposit of H-1 payment shall be given. It shall be the responsibility of the bidder to regularly check status of acceptances of his bid and demand of balance payment for completing 10% of H-1 bid price on the e-auction portal;

i. The HSIIDC shall reserve to itself the right to accept any bid subject to approval of the Competent Authority or reject any bid, even the highest bid or withdraw the site from auction at any stage without assigning any reason.”

4. It is the case of the petitioners that 30 plots of 4050 sq. mts. And 8 plots of 7875 sq. mts. were offered as per Annexure P-3 and the 30 petitioners herein in the present writ petitions were the highest bidders and were waiting for the intimation regarding the approval so that they could deposit the 10% payment within the 72 hours. The respondents had, however, chosen not to accept the bids without giving any specific reason and were wanting to refund the amount. After receiving the said information, the official of HSIIDC had been approached as to find out the ground to cancel the online bidding process but the same had not been intimated to them. Resultantly, it is pleaded that there is a policy of pick and choose to the extent that the plots of other sizes which had been auctioned at the same point of time had been duly issued allotment letters and, therefore, the action of the respondents was arbitrary.

5. On 06.05.2022 while issuing notice of motion, plots mentioned in Annexure P-5 were dire