Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Hariram S/o Hiralal Patidar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Petlawad Distt. Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 5141 of 2024, as in both the writ petitions, a common issue of auction of 29 shops by the respondent No. 1 is involved.
2. Also heard on I.A No.1756/2024, which is an application for withdrawal of the petition on behalf of the petitioner No.1/ Hariram S/o Hiralal Patidar.
3. For the reasons assigned therein, the I.A stands allowed and the petition on behalf of the Petitioner No.1/Hariram S/o Hiralal Patidar is dismissed as withdrawn. The name of the petitioner No. 1 is directed to be deleted from the cause title of the petition by the counsel for the petitioner.
4. So far as W.P.No.24880/2023 is concerned, this petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(b) The impugned public auction dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.
(c) Issue such other orders, writ, direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice in favour of petitioner.”
5. Whereas, in W.P.No.5141/2024, the following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner:-
(b) The impugned public auction dated 1
A party must participate in auction proceedings to have the standing to challenge them; non-participation negates any locus standi.
Petitioners' failure to disclose material facts and misleading statements led to the dismissal of the writ petition, demonstrating the necessity of 'clean hands' in equitable relief.
The court ruled that failure to publish tender notices in widely circulated newspapers violates statutory requirements, necessitating a fresh auction process.
The court established that transparency in the tender process is essential, and failure to comply with statutory requirements can render the tender process invalid.
Judicial intervention is required to address malafide conduct in public tender processes, emphasizing fairness, transparency, and adherence to legal guidelines.
If the impugned auction is not interfered with, it would amount to upholding partial auction and permitting perpetuation of illegality, which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules.
Non-approval of auction bids by Managing Director rendered the bidding process incomplete, with absence of sufficient competition justifying cancellation under public interest.
Court exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India has jurisdiction to examine decision making process without even going into merits of such decision.
Only participants of a tender can challenge its conditions; non-participation negates legal standing to contest any aspect of the tender process.
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
