Courts exercise significant restraint in reviewing commercial contracts or tender processes, refusing to interfere unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias, especially when a party has voluntarily accepted the terms by participating in the auction.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the Resolution dated 16/10/2012 passed by the respondents thereby fixing excessive rent of shop Nos.1 to 19 situated in front of CHC Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh at the rate of ₹3,000/- per month while Tehsildar has approved the rent of ₹1,500/- per month. Further challenge is made to the order dated 15/05/2018 passed by respondent No.2 affirming the order passed by the Collector.

It is the case of the petitioner that Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh prepared the terms and conditions for auction of 19 shops situated in front of Community Health Centre Prithvipur and vide letter dated 28/08/2005 had declared the auction of the said 19 shops to be took place on 20/09/2005 and according to Clause 2 of the said terms and conditions, the rent of each shop was fixed as ₹500/- per month. The Authorities of Nagar Panchayat neither issued any advertisement nor put the shops on auction. After lapse of 4 years, again Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur issued notification regarding auction of the said shops vide letter dated 26/08/2009 and declared that the auction of the said shop to be held on 16/09/2009 and in term of clause 2, rent of each shop was fixed as ₹500/- per month. But again no further action was taken by the Authorities. After lapse of 3-4 years, Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur had convened special meeting of municipal council who decided the rent of these shop to be ₹650/- per month vide order dated 29/08/2012. Thereafter, Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh passed an order/ proposal dated 16/10/2012 fixing the rent of each shop ₹3000/- per month instead of ₹650/- per month pointing out that the Rent Control Officer SDO/ SDM Niwari has sought Prativedan from Tehsildar for settlement of rent of the aforesaid shops and Tehsildar, Prithvipur in its Prativedan approved and recommended the rent of ₹1500/- per month of each shop.

It is his case that Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur has not followed the instructions issued by itself in the year 2005 and 2009 regarding auction of 19 shops and after due recommendation of Tehsildar fixing the rent to be ₹1500/-, respondent No.5 has no right or authority to increase the rent up to ₹3000/- per month. It is further contended in the petition that in pursuance to the said proposal, Nagar Panchayat Prithvipur again issued a letter on 03/12/2012 with respect to auction of 19 shops along with an advertisement. In pursuance to which, auction took place on 26, 27 and 28th of December, 2012 and after completion of auction proceedings, the petitioner was allotted shop No.19 situated in front of Community Health Centre, Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh. Petitioner's name finds place at Sr.No.18 in the list of bidders. Nagar Parishad Tikamgarh has made its own criteria for fixing the rent for per square feet of the shops of Nagar Parishad Tikamgarh. There are 24 shops in front of the Community Health Centre, Prithvipur constructed by Nagar Panchayat, Prithvipur. The auction took place for all 24 shops but in a discriminatory manner, they have fixed the rent as ₹173/- per month for shop Nos.20 to 24 but fixed the rent as ₹3000/- per month for shop Nos.1 to 19 which is unsustainable. Respondents have also charged Sevakar at the rate of 12.36% from the shopkeepers. Being aggrieved by said illegality, the shopkeepers along with petitioner submitted representations agitating their grievances but they failed to evoke any response. Therefore, earlier a Writ Petition No.2464/2014 was filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 22/02/2014 with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 for suspension of the Resolution. In pursuance to which, an Appeal was preferred by petitioner, however, the Collector had not passed any order and slept over the matter. Thereafter again a Writ Petition was filed being W.P. No.15989/2015 wh