The decision to reject the bids was found to be arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of Vyayan Niyam, leading to the setting aside of the Resolution and NIT.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. – These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution take exception to the Resolution No. 69 dated 27-7-2021 whereby the petitioner’s bid were rejected. The consequential Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 160 dated 10-8-2021 is also called in question whereby fresh bids for the same shops were invited by respondent Indore Development Authority (IDA). On the joint request of the parties the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. Facts are taken from W. P. No. 18012/2021.

3. By issuing NIT No. 226 dated 26-9-2019, NIT No. 274 dated 14-11-2019 and NIT No. 97 dated 27-6-2020 the bids were invited for the shops situated at RCM 13 which includes shops No. 1 and 2 which are subject-matter of present lis and RCM No. 14 situated at Scheme No. 140, Anandvan, Phase II, Indore. Since no bids were received by IDA, a fresh NIT No. 220 dated 18-12-2020 (Annexure P/2) was issued. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid NIT through e-tendering and submitted his bid for shops No. 1 and 2 jointly admeasuring 415.92 sq.mtr. The base price fixed by the IDA for the said shops was Rs. 145260 per sq.mtr. The petitioner’s bid stood at Rs. 6,28,52,582.64 (six crore twenty eight lakh fifty two thousand five hundred eighty two and paisa sixty four) which comes to Rs. 1,51,117 rupees per sq.mtr. which was Rs. 5,857 per sq.mtr. higher than the reserve/base price fixed by the respondents.

4. The respondents opened the bids for the shops in question on 15-2-2021 and petitioner was found to be the highest bidder (H-1).

5. The IDA issued letter dated 15-3-2021 and declared the petitioner as the highest bidder and it was further informed that remaining formalities will be communicated to the petitioner. In turn, the tender status report was uploaded on the official website of the tenders of Madhya Pradesh showing the name of petitioner in the awarded bid’s list. The technical and financial bids of petitioner were approved/accepted by the respondents. Heavy reliance is placed on the document dated 15-3-2021 (Annexure P/7).

6. Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Sr. Counsel by placing reliance on Clause 6 of NIT submits that entire tender process was required to be completed within 90 days from the date of opening of the bid. The acceptance of petitioner’s bid is well within the aforesaid time limit. The petitioner deposited an amount of about Rupees 67 lakhs as E.M.D. in furtherance of above NIT dated 18-12-2020.

7. The contention of learned Sr. Counsel is that the petitioners were shocked and surprised to see the fresh NIT dated 10-8-2021 (Annexure P/9) whereby fresh bids were invited for the shops in question. Upon noticing this NIT, the petitioner enquired about the reason and came to know about the impugned resolution dated 27-7-2021 (Annexure P/11). By assigning four reasons, the petitioner’s bid was rejected.

8. Criticising the impugned decision dated 27-7-2021, it is submitted that the petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was duly accepted by the respondents which is clear by communication dated 15-3-2021 (Annexure P/7) and 28-9-2021 (Annexure P/16) filed with the second rejoinder. This shows that it is a case of concluded contract and, therefore, the respondents could not have passed the impugned Resolution rejecting the bids.

9. The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of petitioner was not refunded by the IDA whereas EMD of other bidders was immediately refunded. In both the replies filed in this case on 17-9-2021 and 24-9-2021 it is averred that amount of EMD of petitioner will be refunded within 2-3 days but till date said amount has not been refunded. The said huge amount is still unauthorisedly kept by the IDA. Since said amount of Rupees about 67 lakhs is not refunded, it deprived the petitioner to submit his bid as per fresh NIT dated 10-8-2021 (Annexure P/9). This action of respondents is