Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rohit Jindal vs The Rajasthan Industrial Development ... on 13 September, 2021
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 224/2021
Rohit Jindal S/o Shri Jagdish Jindal, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Agarwal, Resident Of 85, Roop Rajat Township Phase Ii,
Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director, Riico
Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 249/2021
Rohit Burad S/o Shri Praveen Burad, Aged About 35 Years, By
Caste Jain, Resident Of, 22, Nehru Park, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Coropration Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director, Riico
Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 235/2021
Rohit Burad S/o Shri Praveen Burad, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Jain, R/o 22, Nehru Park, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Dev. And Invest.corp. Ltd.
(Riico), Through Managing Director, Riico Ltd., Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
(Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM)
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 293/2021
Rishi Jain S/o Shri Narendra Mal Jain, Aged About 21 Years, By
Caste Jain, Resident Of 19, Mahaveer Nagar, Near Govt.
Polytechnic College, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director, Riico
Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 444/2021
Naman Bhansali S/o Ravindra Bhansali, Aged About 19 Years, By
Caste Jain, Resident Of 3, Bhagat Ki Kothi Extension, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Raj. Industrial Development And Investment Cor.
Ltd., Riico, Through Managing Director, Riico Ltd, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12013/2020
M/s K.b. Arts And Crafts, A Proprietorship Concern Through Its
Proprietor Kunj Bihari Son Of Shri Ramavatar Agarwal, Aged
About 40 Years, F 311-312 Iind Phase, Basni, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director,
Riico Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM)
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali
District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13360/2020
Kshamandra Jain S/o Shri Dinesh Mal Jain, Aged About 36
Years, B/c Jain, R/o House No. 6, Opp. Bheru Bag, Sardarpura,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Raj. Industrial Development And Investment Cor.
Ltd., (Riico), Through Managing Director, Riico Ltd.,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 301/2021
Dheeraj Gandhi S/o Shri Roop Kishroe Gandhi, Aged About 49
Years, By Caste Maheshwari, Resident Of 180, Dhoot Bhawan
1St 'c' Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director,
Riico Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1173/2021
Prakash Pemaram Choudhary S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Choudhary, Resident Of Room No. C-2, 2Nd
Floor, Pushpanjali Residency, Near Aashirwaad Hospital,
Bhayandar East, Thane (Maharastra)
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM)
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director,
Riico Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2759/2021
Smt. Santosh Singhal W/o Shri Vikas Singhal, Aged About 40
Years, By Caste Agarwal, Resident Of 57, Adarsh Nagar, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director,
Riico Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/2021
Dinesh Baheti S/o Shri Sunder Lal Baheti, Aged About 40 Years,
By Caste Maheshwari, Resident Of 80, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Through Managing Director,
Riico Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali,
District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
(Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM)
Order 13/09/2021 In all these writ petitions common issue is involved, hence, decided together.
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.224/2021, the following prayers reads as under:-
"(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the petitioner's bid as reflected in Exhibit 4 and they may kindly be directed to make allotment of industrial plot bearing no.E-17, Naya Goan Industrial Area, District Pali in favour of the petitioner at the rate offered in his bid to the tune of Rs.1220/- per sqm:
(b) Formal Cancellation Order of petitioner's bid if any has been passed by the respondents then may kindly be treated as quashed.
(C) The respondents may kindly be restrained from putting the plot No.E-17, Industrial Area, Nayagaon, District Pali in re-auction/further auction.
(D) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(E) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
Brief facts of the case are that respondents (to be referred as RIICO) issued e-auction notice dated 04.09.2020 by which invited online bids for allotment of various category of plots in RIICO's Industrial Areas through E-Auction Bidding System. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners applied for allotment of plots. The offer made by all the petitioners for allotment of plots were above than the reserves rate. The committee of the respondent has considered the case of the petitioners for allotment of plot in its meeting dated 10.11.2020 (Annex.-R/3). The auction committee completed the auction proceedings and considered the single bid offered for the allotment of plot by the petitioners in their favour and the Committee has rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners for allotment of plot in their favaour. (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM) The reason recorded by the committee for rejection in their meeting reads as under:-
"It has been reported to the committee that higher multiple bids have been received in the same auction. Therefore, the single bid received for these plots doesn't seem competitive. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, the single bids are rejected."
During the pendency of the writ petitions before this Court, the petitioners have filed application for amendment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.224/2021 challenging the order dated 10.11.2020 (Annex.-R/3). Application for amendment in the writ petition is allowed and amended writ petition is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in previous auction proceedings, the respondent-RIICO has accepted various bids which have been received as single bid pertaining to the industrial plots situated in the same area whereas the bid offered by the petitioners and received by RIICO pertaining to the industrial plots situated in the same area were rejected, therefore, rejection of their application amount to be discriminated amongst the similarly situated persons. Learned counsel further submitted that general directions issued by the RIICO from time to time with regard to e-auction were not followed by them. It is also submitted that prior to rejection of the bid, no notice was served upon the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Bandeep Singh and Ors. rendered in 2016 (1) SCC 724 wherein in para Nos. 6 and 7 held as under:- (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM)
"(6) In the impugned judgment, the High Court has rightly concluded that no sustainable justification and rationalization was recorded in writing at the relevant time for ordering the re-auction of only the two subject properties. However, we should not be understood to have opined that the Government is bound in every case to accept the highest bid above the reserve price. Needless to say, the presence of cartelization or "pooling' could be a reason for the cancellation of an auction process. In addition, a challenge on the ground that the property has fetched too low a bid when compared to the prevailing market price, would also be valid and permissible provided this approach has been uniformly adhered to. In the case at hand, however, while the latter was ostensibly the reason behind the decision for conducting a fresh auction, no evidence has been placed on the record to support this contention. The highest bids, marginally above the reserve price, have been accepted tin the self-
same auction. The factual scenario before us is clearly within the mischief which was frowned upon in Mohinder Singh Gill. We therefore uphold the impugned judgment for all the reasons contained therein. The assailed action of the Appellant is not substantiated in the noting, which ought at least to have been conveyed to the respondents.
(7) The bid of the Respondents is already over a decade old, which is the period the present Appeal has been awaiting its turn in this Court. We must, therefore, balance the equities and interest of the adversaries before us. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents that although the Appellant had addressed a letter to the Respondents purporting to return the sums received from them, the cheque for this amount was not enclosed with the letter. The fact remains that these sums continue to be in the coffers of the Appellant. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the balance sale consideration had been tendered by the Respondents to the Appellant, who declined to accept it on the premise that their Appeal was pending in this Court. Learned Senior Counsel suggested that in the endeavour to do justice to all the parties before this Court, we may direct the Respondents to pay the price of the land at the prevailing Circle Rates, which suggestion has readily been accepted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant with alacrity. Since the Respondents have succeeded in the High Court as well as before us, they should not be deprived of the fruits of the litigation and suffer the disadvantage of losing the land for which they have successfully paid the earnest money and deposited more than twenty five per cent of the sale consideration and have tendered the entire remainder. Learned counsel appearing for the (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM) Appellant conceded that, in the facts of the present case, if the Respondents are directed to pay the circle rates, as existing today, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, we hold that if the Respondents tender the price of the land equivalent to the prevailing Circle Rate minus the sums already paid by them to the Appellant within ninety days from today, the Appellant shall take all necessary steps to convey the land to the Respondents within sixty days thereafter."
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the terms and condition of the E-auction policy, the RIICO reserves the right to cancel highest bid offered by any person. It is submitted that the Auction Committee has rejected the single bid offered by the petitioners on the ground that higher multiple bids have been received in the same auction for the plots in the same area. Counsel further submits that single bid received for these plots were not competitive, therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the single bid offered by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the reserve price for the plots offered by the RIICO was Rs.1200 per square meter and the petitioners have offered for just Rs.10 to 15 above the reserve price whereas in the same auction proceeding and for the same area, the RIICO received offer between Rs.1320 per square meter to Rs.1720 per square meter for the plots, therefore, considering the huge difference of rates in the bid offered by the petitioners, the Committee has taken a conscious decision with regard to not accepting the bids submitted by the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no provision of negotiation with the highest bidder as per the policy of RIICO.
In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. vs. Orchid (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM) Infrastructure Developers Private Limited rendered in (2017) 4 SCC 243 wherein para Nos.28 and 30 held as under:-
28 This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh has laid down that there is no obligation to accept the highest bid. The Government is entitled even to change its policy from time to time according to the demands of the time. It was observed thus :
"3. It appears to us that the High Court had clearly misdirected itself. The Conditions of Auction made it perfectly clear that the Government was under no obligation to accept the highest bid and that no rights accrued to the bidder merely because his bid happened to be the highest. Under Condition 10 it was expressly provided that the acceptance of bid at the time of auction was entirely provisional and was subject to ratification by the competent authority, namely, the State Government. Therefore, the Government had the right, for good and sufficient reason, we may say, not to accept the highest bid but even to prefer a tenderer other than the highest bidder. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Government could not refuse to accept the highest bid except on the ground of inadequacy of the bid. Condition 10 does not so restrict the power of the Government not to accept the bid. There is no reason why the power vested in the Government to refuse to accept the highest bid should be confined to inadequacy of bid only. There may be a variety of good and sufficient reasons, apart from inadequacy of bids, which may impel the Government not to accept the highest bid. In fact, to give an antithetic illustration, the very enormity of a bid may make it suspect. It may lead the Government to realise that no bona fide bidder could possibly offer such a bid if he meant to do honest business. Again the Government may change or refuse its policy from time to time and we see no reason why change of policy by the Government, subsequent to the auction but before its confirmation, may not be a sufficient justification for the refusal to accept the highest bid. It cannot be disputed that the Government has the right to change its policy from time to time, according to the demands of the time and situation and in the public interest. If the Government has the power to accept or not to accept the highest bid and if the Government has also the power to change its policy from time to time, it must follow that a change or revision of policy subsequent to the provisional acceptance of the bid but before its final acceptance is a sound enough reason for the Government's refusal to accept the highest bid at an auction..."
30 In Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies & Anr., this Court has laid down that a bidder has no right in the matter of bid except of fair treatment in the matter and cannot insist for further negotiation. The Authority has a right to reject the highest bid. This Court has laid down thus :
"27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:48 PM) terms and conditions of the tender except on the abovestated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.
29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism."
Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Komal Aggrawal and State of Rajasthan and Ors in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.274/2012 wherein held as under:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the material available on record, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference.
Admittedly as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the bid offered were subject to confirmation and the RIICO had reserved its right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason. Since the sale was subject to confirmation, therefore, no concluded contract could come into existence till the sale is confirmed by the competent authority. In the instance case, the appellant on her own accepting the terms and conditions applied for the plot in question and the competent committee of RIICO rejected the bid of the appellant for Plot No.GI-958 and that of one Ms. Parul Gupta for Plot No.H419 for the reason that offer made by them were just little higher than the reserve price. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand (1994(1) SCC-131) wherein it has been held that the auction purchaser gets a right only on confirmation of sale and till then his right is nebulous and has only right to consideration for confirmation of sale. Thus, the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case formed opinion that the rejection of the bid by the competent authority cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary and we find no good ground to interfere with the same.
The learned Single Judge has also taken into account scope of judicial review in such contractual matter and noticed the decision of the Hon'ble (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:49 PM) Supreme Court in Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investment and Anr. (2007(1) SCC-477) wherein it has been observed that in the matter of sale of the plots by the public body which are commercial transaction, even if some defects are found the Court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with great care and caution and should exercise only in furtherance of public interest. That apart it has come on record that in the subsequent NIT inviting the sealed bids for the said plot, the reserve price is fixed at Rs.3500/- and the highest bid received is Rs.5130/- which is more than double the price offered by the appellant and the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the cost of the plot has doubled just within a period of four months refused to grant indulgence as it will be against the public interest.
Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the appellant. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the intra court appeal deserved to be dismissed.
Consequently, the intra court appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed. D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.6002/2012 also stands dismissed."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons firstly the petitioners have participated in the e-auction proceeding after reading the terms and condition of the auction and as per the terms and condition of the auction, the RIICO reserves right to cancel the highest bid offered by the petitioners. Secondly, the Auction Committee considered the fact that higher multiple bids have been received in the same auction for another plots, therefore, the single bid offered by the petitioners does not seems to be competitive. Thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra) as well as Division Bench of this (Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:49 PM) Court in the matter of Komal Aggarwal (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constituion of India in these matters.
Hence, these writ petitioners are dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J 70-Taruna/-
(Downloaded on 15/09/2021 at 08:35:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)