IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Hariram S/o Hiralal Patidar - Appellant
Vs.
Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Petlawad Distt. Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh) - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24880 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2024
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the I.A stands allowed and the petition on behalf of the Petitioner No.1/Hariram S/o Hiralal Patidar is dismissed as withdrawn.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 19.02.2024 (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.”
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the auction notice dated 12/09/2023 has been issued by the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules,1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”), and this Court vide its order dated 26/09/2023 had also directed that the petitioner be also permitted to participate in the auction proceeding scheduled on 27/09/2023, and it was also directed that the bid of the petitioner shall not be finalised without the leave of this court.
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the auction proceedings did not take place on 27/09/2023 and were cancelled without even taking any permission from this Court, and a second auction notice dated 19/02/2024, was issued by the respondents which compelled the petitioner to file yet another petition bearing W.P 5141/2024 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
8. A reply to the aforesaid petition has already been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioners have no locus to file the petition, as neither in the earlier auction proceedings nor in the subsequent auction proceedings which took place in the presence of the hundreds of villagers, the petitioners took part did not participate in the auction proceedings, and their only agenda is to harass the office bearers of the Gram Panchayat with whom, they have an axe to grind, having political rivalry. Counsel has also drawn attention of this court to the service of notice to the petitioners about the auction proceedings on 19.02.2024, as also the photographs of the auction proceedings dated 19.02.2024, in which hundreds of villagers have taken part. Thus, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of such proceedings in which, the entire village was present and participated. In support of his submissions, Shri Jain has also relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka Mahalakshmi Engineering Works and another vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Kar. 1719 to substantiate his submission that when the petitioner has not participated in the tender process, he/she cannot he heard to whittle down the rights of eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of written and express terms and conditions.
9. It is also submitted that the auction proceedings have already been finalised on 19/02/2024, in the presence of the villagers, after publication of notice in the newspaper Swadesh on 07/02/2024. The photographs and the documents regarding which hav
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.