JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J.

The present judgment shall dispose of 14 cases i.e. 13656, 14587, 14589, 13343, 13362, 13366, 13580, 13587, 13599, 13638, 13682, 13633, 13707 and 13820 of 2023 since the issue in consideration is common. Facts have been taken from CWP-13656-2023, Mahavir Singh v. Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran and others whereby affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and pleadings have been completed. The factual matrix in essence being the same, the said judgment would be applicable to all the cases as the principle of law being common.

2. The relief sought in the present writ petition is for quashing the e-auction which was sought to be fixed for 27.06.2023 whereby, the reserve price of the booth in question bearing Booth No.128, Sector 57, Gurugram-II was fixed at Rs.97,79,000/-. The challenge was on the ground that in an earlier e-auction held on 19.01.2023, the petitioner had auctioned for the said property at Rs.1,33,44,800/- and being the highest bidder, he should have been declared successful. The action of refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner was stated to be without any rhyme or reason and illegal against the e-auction policy dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-1).

3. As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, public notice for e- auction of the booth in question i.e. Booth No.128, Sector 57, Gurugram-II, was issued for 19.01.2023 and the base price had been fixed at Rs.97,64,800/-. The earnest money to be deposited was Rs.4,89,300/-. In the auction held accordingly, the petitioner had made a bid at Rs.1,33,44,800/- against the base/reserve price of Rs.97,64,800/ and he had been informed of the said fact from the mail received (Annexure P-4) of the same date. The sum of Rs.8,46,180/- was thereafter deposited on 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) to make the total deposit to Rs.13,34,480/-, which was 10% of the bid amount. However, after a period of 4 months and 15 days, the whole amount was re-deposited by the Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran (in short 'the HSVP') in his account on 05.06.2023 in two installments as deposited by the petitioner. No intimation was given as to why the amount had been refunded and why the letter of intent had not been issued. Thereafter, fresh e-auction notice was issued for 27.06.2023 and the base price of the booth in question was fixed at Rs.97,79,000/-.

4. Resultantly, challenge was raised that there was no need to auction as the petitioner had already bidded much higher than the reserve price and there was no valid reason and neither he had been communicated for cancellation except refunding the amount. Reliance was placed upon Clause No.31 of the policy dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) that the earnest money of the unsuccessful bidders was to be refunded in three days except the highest bidder and the competent authority was to take a decision within 30 days from the date of e-auction and, therefore, it amounted to a concluded contract.

5. The defence taken by the respondent authority-HSVP was that the bid of the petitioner was examined on the file and it was found that due to error in MIS (software of HSVP), wrong reserve price was fixed and, therefore, the competent authority had decided to cancel the auction and refund 10% of the amount deposited. The ICICI bank had been requested vide letter dated 25.05.2023 to refund the amount and the same had been received by the petitioner on 05.06.2023. Reliance was placed upon Clause No.17 of the e-auction policy that the competent authority reserved the right to accept or reject any bid or t