AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mudit Agrawal and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for the respondents.
Petitioner''s bid for the commercial plot, though highest but has not been approved by the Parishad. The reason given in the order shows that for want of competitive rates being offered the adequate bids could not be reached and, therefore, bid of the petitioner cannot be approved.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s bid was much higher than the reserve price, namely Rs.10,560/ and against it the petitioner has given offer of Rs.14000/ per sq. meter.
The learned counsel for the respondents in response submits that though there were three bidders but there was no competitive rates and, therefore, the bid has not been approved. It was the discretion of the Parishad to be satisfied about the adequacy of the bid and if the Parishad has found that it was not adequate bid, the petitioner cannot claim any right much less any enforceable right for getting contract/plot on the same bid.
The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.9468 (MB) of 1007 Shiv Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.1.2008 in which case also the highest bid was much more than reserve price but the Court refused to entertain the petition against disapproval of the bid and observed as under:
�The auction purchaser when offers a bid may be the highest bid, no right accrues in his favour for enhancement of the bid and for getting the mandamus from the Court for award of the contract on the basis of the highest bid. The auction would become complete only when the bid was approved by the competent authority, in the instant case by the Housing Commissioner. It is in the domain of the approving authority to see as to whether the bid is adequate or inadequate. The Court rarely interferes in such cases unless the order is arbitrary or discriminatory.�
The auction purchaser cannot plead any vested right much less indefeasible and enforcible right for getting his bid approve in case the authority competent to approve the bid finds that the bid was inadequate or there was some cogent reason for not accepting the bid. In case bid is rejected arbitrarily, then the aggrieved person may raise his grievance but in such cases he will have to plead and establish about the arbitrariness and on mere assertion that the action is arbitrary, the petition would not be entertained. In the instant case the reason given for not accepting the bid cannot be said to be arbitrary. The petition has no force. It is dismissed. However, in case any fresh auction takes place, the petitioner may participate as per rules.
(Petition dismissed)