Delhi High Court
Kalkaji Industries Association And ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors. on 1 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 75(1998)DLT801
Author: K.S. Gupta
Bench: K.S. Gupta
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The facts in brief are that on 2.2.1985 M/s. Kalkaji Industries Association, claiming to be an Association of persons/companies/body corporate, owning and running factories and other commercial establishments or business houses in the locality known as Kalkaji, New Delhi filed Civil Writ No. 325/85 through its President. It Was alleged; that the Delhi Development Authority (for short "the D.D.A.") had carved out plots at site Nos. 49, 58 and 104, which it was intending to auction with effect from 4.2.1985; under the Master Plan, the D.D.A. had earmarked various portions of the land available with it to be utilised for residential purposes, commercial purposes and industrial purposes. The land around the areas, which were to be utilised for industrial purposes, was earmarked as green belt, to be utilised for district parks, play grounds and open spaces. Green Belt was provided in the Master Plan to ensure that the residents of the area do not suffer because of pollution and other environmental reasons. Sites No. 49, 58 and 104 surrounds industrial area of Kalkaji and in the Lay Out Plan of Kalkaji, the said sites are shown as green land and as such cannot be subject matter of auction to public at large, therefore, the intended auction per-se was mala fide. A direction was sought restraining the respondent/D.D.A. from auctioning and/or confirming the bids and from allotting plots or giving possession thereof to proposed bidders.
2. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 5.2.1985. Notice was directed to be issued for 7.2.1985. On that date the auction, which was scheduled for the same day was stayed on the condition that in case the petition would fail, the petitioners will be liable for expenses for postponement of the same. It was further directed mat in case auction has already taken place, the bid will not be confirmed till further orders of the Court.
3. On 6.3.1985, Rule D.B. was issued. Auction of the plots was directed to remain stayed with this condition that as and when Draft Zonal Development Plan is notified, whereby this area can be used for residential purposes, the D.D. A. would be at liberty to move an application for variation of the stay order. The Court further prohibited every one from making any construction in the area in question or for utilising the land for any unauthorised purpose. The writ petition has remained pending thereafter.
Civil Writ No. 1795/864. Civil Writ No. 1795/86 is by Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta and was instituted on 13.8.1986 alleging that the D.D. A. published a notice in local newspapers for auction of developed residential plots numbering 79 in Kalkaji, New Delhi. The auction was to be held from 4.2.1985 to 8.2.1985. The auction was open to every resident of Union Territory of Delhi, subject to certain terms and conditions. The petitioner participated in the auction on 8.2.1985 and gave the highest bid for plot No. 47, Block Site No. 49, measuring 162 sq. mtrs. at Kalkaji Road, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 3,24,100/- which was accepted by the Bid Officer on the spot, A sum of Rs. 81,02s/-, being 25% of the total value of the plot towards earnest money was deposited on the same day. Abruptly on 29.4.1986 a letter was received by the petitioner from the Executive Officer (OSD) D.D. A. stating that the plot had been cancelled and the bid of the petitioner had been rejected by the D.D.A. The petitioner was asked to collect the cheque for Rs. 81,025/-, being the amount deposited by him at the time of auction. The petitioner was further informed that he can participate in the open auction, as and when it would take place. The petitioner alleged that he had a vague information that a civil writ petition along with an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by some Industrial Association of Kalkaji praying for stay of the auction, to be held by the D.D.A. but had no other information. The petitioner thus questioned the action of respondent No. 1 in cancelling the bid and thus seeks to get the letter dated 24.4.1986 quashed.
5. On the interim application moved by the petitioner, an order was passed on 3.10.1986 directing that the plot in question shall not be re-auctioned by the respondents. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.3.1989. The petitioner approached Supreme Court against this order. On 29.11.1987 his Civil Appeal No. 4862/89, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) 8413/89 was allowed. Order dated 10.3.1989was set aside and the writ petition was directed to be heard with Civil Writ No. 325/85. On receipt of the said order, Rule D.B. was issued on 16.1.1990.
Civil Writ No. 568/876. Shri J.K. Bhandari and Smt. Reena Bhandari approached this Court on 24.2.1987 alleging that on 8.2.1985 as many as 9 plots were put to auction by the D.D.A., pursuant to auction notice (Annexure-A). They also participated and were declared to be the highest bidders at Rs. 6,75,300/- for plot No. 41 situated on site No. 49 measuring 216 sq.meters. Their highest bid was above the reserve price. Proceedings for auction were conducted after wide publicity through newspaper. Auction sale was well attended. There was no illegality and irregularity in the conduct of auction sale. Reserve price, though was exceptionally and exorbitantly high, the petitioners offered the bid, which was above the reserve price, therefore, the officer conducting the auction, who could also reject the highest bid did not do so and accordingly accepted their highest bid and received a sum of Rs. 1,18,825/- from the petitioners, being 25% of the bid money. The petitioners have impatiently been waiting for a letter of demand to enable them to deposit the remaining amount. Petitioner No. 1 also made a request to his employer for grant of loan but was shocked to receive letter dated 24.4.1986 from the D.D.A. informing that their bid had been rejected by the Vice Chairman, D.D.A. This action of the respondent in cancelling the petitioners' bid is under challenge being arbitrary and consequently a direction is sought for acceptance of the bid and delivery of possession on receipt of the balance amount.
7. The writ petition came up on 2.3.1987. On the interim application, it was directed that the plot in question shall not be auctioned or allotted to any party. The petition ultimately was dismissed on 15.3.1989, against which order Special Leave Petition No. 12836/89 was preferred in the Supreme Court. On 26.3.1990 the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and set aside the order of this Court dated 15.3.1989 directing that the writ petition be heard on merits. Accordingly this petition was posted for hearing and was heard.
Civil Writ No. 3060/918. The petitioner P. Narasimha has also challenged the letter dated 24.4.1986 cancelling his bid with respect to Plot No. 44, Block-O, Site No. 49, Kalkaji, New Delhi- It is alleged that the petitioner participated in the auction and gave bid on 8.2.1985 for Plot No. 44 for a sum of Rs. 3,24,100/-. It was duly approved and accepted by the Auction Officer on the spot. A sum of Rs. 84,500/- was deposited being 25% of the bid amount. No demand letter was received thereafter and the petitioner was informed that the plot in question was subject matter of one writ petition pending in this Court. The petitioner received letter dated 24.4.1986 informing that his bid has been rejected. He was asked to collect Rs. 84,500/-. The petitioner at that stage challenged the action of the respondents by filing Civil Writ No. 166/87, whereafter he had continuously been visiting the office of the D.D.A. and sending representations also. Pursuant to one of his representations dated 30.3.1989, he was verbally assured that he would be allotted an alternate plot in some adjoining colony.' As a consequence of the said assurance, the petitioner withdrew his Writ Petition No. 166/87on 3.5.1989 with liberty reserved to file fresh petition. The petitioner was ultimately allotted flat No. 492, Pocket-C in Sarita Vihar, which the petitioner accepted, without prejudice to his rights for allotment of an alternative plot. The petitioner on 23.9.1991 filed this petition saying that Sarita Vihar flat was not suitable to him for various reasons. Accordingly, he prayed that after setting aside the impugned letter dated 24.4.1986, his bid be directed to be confirmed and site in question be allotted to him, the balance amount be directed to be recovered from him, after adjusting the amount paid for allotment of Sarita Vihar flat.
CM.1455/959. It is an application moved in Civil Writ No. 325/85 by Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta (who is the petitioner in C. W.1795/86) seeking his impleadment as party to the said petition.
C.M.7359/9510. It is an application by the D.D.A. praying for dismissal of Civil Writ No. 325/85 because of the subsequent developments, which have happened during the pendency of the petition. It is stated on behalf of respondent/D.D.A. in this application that a reference was made to the Central Government for change of user of the land in question from recreational to residential. The Central Government on 7.8.1993 published notification, in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, inviting objections/suggestions as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 11-A of the said Act. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act, made modifications to the Master Plan of Delhi, for which public notification was issued on 25.8.1994. The land use of the area measuring 6.1 hectares, falling in Sub-zone (M.O.R. Pocket Nos. 49,58 and 104 Kalkaji) has been changed from recreational to residential. Copy of the notification is attached to the application is Annexure-RA-1.
11. The application further states that liberty was reserved to the D.D.A. to move an application for appropriate directions. Irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the D.D.A. if writ petition is not disposed of and stay is not vacated immediately since the bona fide purchasers of the plots in question were facing serious prejudice in not having been able to construct over the said plots due to the operation of order of stay. It is also stated therein that it has not been possible for D.D.A. to confirm the auction sales in favour of the purchasers because of the interim orders passed in this case. Accordingly, it is prayed that in view of the modification carried out to the Master Plan, cause of action does not now survive to the petitioner and the writ petition be dismissed and restraint order be vacated. This application was moved on 22.10.1995 supported on the affidavit of Shri Sudripto Roy, Commissioner (L & D), D.D.A. CM. 7749/96
12. It is an application for early hearing by one Shri Ravindra Mohan stating that he made a bid for Plot No. 13, Site No. 58 on Kalkaji Road, which was the highest bid and was accepted by the officer conducting the auction. The bid was duly confirmed by Vice Chairman, D.D.A. on 7.2.1985. He was not put in possession of the plot on the ground that the plot was subject matter of stay granted by this Court. Aggrieved by the action of the D.D.A. Civil Writ No. 618/90 was filed against the D.D.A., which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court directing the D.D.A. to give a plot to the applicants of equivalent measurements at the same price and in the same area. The said order was challenged by the D.D.A. by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17908/91, which is pending in Supreme Court. The hearing of Special Leave Petition had been adjourned to await decision of this Court in Civil Writ No. 325/85. It is prayed in the application that writ petition be heard at an early date.
C.M. 1175/9713. It is an application seeking impleadment by Shri R.A. Poddar and Mrs. Madhu Poddar. It is their case that they offered their bid for one plot of land No. 46 and deposited 25% of the bid amount on the spot measuring 162 sq. mts. at a price of Rs. 3,24,100/-. A suit was filed by them on 24.10.1986 seeking decree of injunction against the D.D.A. restraining it from rejecting their bid dated 8.2.1985. The suit was dismissed on 24.10.1992 as not maintainable. Their application for having the suit revived was also dismissed on 4.11.1995. Shri R. A. Poddar and Mrs. Madhu Poddar have sought their impleadment and are praying that they be permitted to intervene, in order to protect their rights.
14. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard by us. Original record was also made available for our perusal.
15. In so far as Civil Writ No. 325/85 is concerned, the same, in view of the decision of Central Government, as incorporated in notification dated 25.8.1994 is rendered infructuous. The decision has been arrived at by the Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-section (2) to Section 11 of the Delhi Development Act, 1956 after inviting objections/suggestions against the proposed modification. There is no challenge made to the modification, which has been made by the Central Government in any substantive writ petition except by placing on record an additional affidavit of Shri C.P. Khanna dated 15.2.1997 in C.W. 325/85.
This affidavit of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be taken note of in support of the submissions made for challenging the modification. In case the petitioners were really aggrieved against the proposed modification it was open for them to have filed objections before the Central Government. Admittedly, no objections were filed. The Central Government is empowered to modify the Master Flan. It took decision. Such a decision of the Central Government is not open now for challenge on the grounds stated in the affidavit, that it would be totally unfair on the part of the D.D.A. to auction plots and obtain money from general public by auction of the plots, which earlier were included in green belt. In substance, there is no valid challenge to the notification. Accordingly, Civil Writ No. 325/85 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
16. Grant of relief to the other petitioners and applicants is now dependent upon the legality and validity of the letter dated 24.4.1986. Those, who were declared to be the highest bidders in the auction conducted on 8.2.1985 were sent separately similar letter. Except for the names, the amount and plot numbers, the language of the letter is the same. One of the letters addressed to the petitioner Ajay Kumar Gupta reads:
"No. S/14(33)/85-OSB DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OLD SCHEME BRANCH VIKAS SADAN, BLOCK-A, IIND FLOOR, NEAR INA COLONY. New Delhi, the dated: 24.4.86.
To Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta r/o B-179, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048.
Subject : Auction of Plot No. 47, Block No. Site No. 49, measuring 162.00 sq.mts. at Kalkaji, New Delhi. Dear Sir,
With reference to the auction held on 8.2.85 for the purchase of the above residential plot, I am directed to inform you that your bid for Rs. 3,24,100/-for the said plot has been rejected by the Vice Chairman, D.D.A.
2. You are, therefore, requested to collect the cheque of the amount of Rs. 81,025/- deposited by you at the time of auction as earnest money, after fifteen days from the date of receipt of this letter.
3. You can, of course, participate in an open auction as and when it is held.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
EXECUTIVE OFFICER (OSB)."
17. The stand of the D.D.A. has been that though the highest bidders did participate in the bid and their bids were accepted by the Auction Officer on the spot, keeping in view the order dated 7.2.1985 passed in Civil Writ No. 325/85, the auction bid could not have been confirmed by the Vice Chairman. As per the terms of the auction, the highest bid can be rejected, without assigning any reason, by the Vice Chairman. The petitioners were aware of this term and condition and as such, the order rejecting the highest bid is proper and legally valid. The highest bidders were duly informed through letter dated 24.4.1986 that auction bid was not accepted and the same stands rejected. They were asked to collect the earnest money and were also informed that they were at liberty to participate in fresh auction.
18. It was contended by learned Counsel appearing for the D.D.A. that the Vice Chairman with whom absolute discretion vests in accepting or rejecting the bid, rightly exercised his powers. As there was stay operating in Civil Writ No. 325/85, which had been duly confirmed on 6.3.1985, a decision was taken by the Vice Chairman to reject the bids because of the pendency of the said writ petition. This action of Vice Chairman is perfectly legal and valid and is not open to challenge.
19. The first order staying the auction passed on7.2.1985 in Civil Writ No. 325/85 reads :
"7.2.85 Present: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Sistani, Counsel for the respondents.
C.W. 325 and CM 432 of 1985 Mr. Sistani wants time till Monday to even get the records. C.W. and C.M. are adjourned to 11th February, 1985. Since the auction starts from today, the same is stayed on the condition that in case the petition fails, the petitioners will be liable for expenses for the postponement of the same. In case any auction has already taken place, the bid will not be confirmed till further orders of this Court. Dasti.
Sd Yogeshwar Dayal.
February 7, 1985 Sd/- B.N. Kirpal."
20. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the aforementioned order was passed on 7.2.1985 and was not within the knowledge of the petitioners or the Auction Officer. Accordingly, in ignorance of this order, the auction was held on 8.2.1985, in which the petitioners participated and were declared to be the highest bidders. They also deposited 25% of the bid money. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent/D.D.A. that the bid offered by the petitioners was above the reserve price. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that had there been no stay, there was no reason that why the bids would not have been confirmed. Had that been done, the petitioners would have got possession of the respective plots on deposit of the balance amount, in the year 1985 itself. It was due to the stay order, which was confirmed on 6.3.1985 that neither the bids could be confirmed, nor the petitioners could be put in possession. They have also not received back the earnest money deposited by them. Because of the order passed on 6.3.1985, it was not at all permissible for the Vice Chairman to have passed any order, either accepting or rejecting the bids till final disposal of Civil Writ No. 325/85. The Court had not directed the Vice Chairman to proceed ahead in the matter and as such the action of the respondent/D.D.A. in issuing letter dated 24.4.1986 is arbitrary and mala fide.
21. The order dated 6.3.1985 reads:
"6.3.85 Present Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Sistani, with Mr. G.S. Sistani, Counsel for the respondents.
On a query raised by us, Mr. Sistani states very fairly that even if the plots in the pockets in question being Pocket Nos. 49,58 and 104 are sold by auction, the auction purchasers will not be liable to construct residential houses thereon because in the Master Plan the area is shown as green belt though in the Draft Zonal Development Plan the area was partly shown as a park and partly as residential. There is no Zonal Development Plan finalised under Section 11-A of the Delhi Development Act whereby this area has been categorised as residential area. Undoubtedly in the year 1981 there was a resolution passed by the respondent/ Authority proposing that this area should be regarded as a residential area but the amendment so proposed in the draft Zonal Development Plan has not so far been approved or notified under the D.D. Act. It is for this reason that even if the land is sold, no construction can be made on this land.
In view of this, we feel it is a fit case where the petition should be admitted. We accordingly issue Rule D.B. C.M. 432/85
22. It is contended by Shri Sistani that even though the auction purchasers may not be able to construct houses on the land in question, the D.D.A. should still be permitted to auction the land subject to the condition that the auction purchasers would be permitted to construct the houses only after Zonal Development Plan has been notified. It appears to us that it will be very unfair on the part of the D.D.A. to auction the land, obtain money from the public but still not be in a position to grant permission for houses to be constructed. In view of this, we would stay the auction of the plots of land. As and when the draft Zonal Development Plan is notified whereby this area can be used for residential purposes, the D.D.A. would be at liberty to move for variation of the stay order and as it present advised, if such a Zonal Development Plan is notified the petition itself may have to be dismissed. We prohibit every one from making any construction on the said pockets in question or using the same for any unauthorised purpose and the D.D.A. is at liberty to take such steps as will be open to it in law to prevent unauthorized use of the area in question. C.M. stands disposed of.
Sd/- B.N. Kirpal, J.
March 6, 1985 Sd/- Sunanda Bhandare, J."
23. The facts as emerge from the above narration are that for the developed residential plots of various sizes in Kalkaji, D.D.A. announced an auction to be held from 4.2.1985 to 8.2.1985. The terms of the auction required the highest bidder to pay, at the fall of the hammer, 25% of the bid amount as an earnest money, either in cash or by bank draft in favour of the D.D.A. The balance amount was required to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of the demand letter. On failure to pay the balance amount, within a period of 30 days, the earnest money was to stand forfeited and the Vice Chairman, D.D.A. was competent to re-auction the plot. The terms of auction also stated that officer conducting the auction, may at any time, without assigning any reason, withdraw all the plots or any one or more of the plots from the auction. It is also an admitted position that on 8.2.1985 some of the plots were put to auction. The petitioners were not before the Court. Their highest bids were accepted by the officer conducting the auction and consequently they deposited 25% of the bid amount, which was accepted, without any objection by the officer conducting the auction.
24. On 4.2.1985 Civil Writ No. 325/85 was filed in this Court challenging the action of the respondent/D.D.A. in putting the plots in question to auction, on the grounds; that the same was mala fide and that the land cannot be made subject matter of auction since it was contrary to the Master Plan. On 7.2.1985 the auctions, as scheduled were stayed, subject to certain conditions quoted above. This order was confirmed with modification on 6.3.1985. Obviously, because of two stay orders passed by this Court, the Vice Chairman, D.D.A. could not have proceeded to confirm the auctions, held on 8.2.1985. On 24.4.1986 the D.D.A. sent a communication to the petitioners informing that their bids stand rejected. Admittedly, the communication did not assign any reason whatsoever. Only in the affidavit filed by the D.D.A. by way of reply to the writ petition it was stated that keeping in view the order dated 7.2.1985, passed in Civil Writ No. 325/85, the auction bid could not have been confirmed by the Vice Chairman. Therefore, the highest bidders were informed that their auction bid was not acceptable and stands rejected. They were also informed that they can participate in the auction, as and when the same would be held. They were also asked to collect the earnest money. Despite this letter the highest bidders did not come forward to collect the amount.
25. It is also an admitted position that on reference received by the Central Government for change of user of the land in question from recreational to residential, the Central Government published notice on 7.8.1993, in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act inviting objections/suggestions, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 11-A. In exercise of its powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 11-A, the Central Government through order passed on 25.8.1994, made modification in the Master Plan. Thus prior to 25.8.1994, the Master Plan was not modified. As per the unmodified Master Plan, prior to 25.5.1994 the area in question could not have been put to auction by the D.D.A. It was not a residential area, as per the unmodified Master Plan but was only green area meant for recreational purposes. It is in the light of these facts that submissions made on behalf of learned Counsel for the parties will have to be dealt with.
26. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the action of the D.D.A. in rejecting the bid after 1 1/2 years of the auction per se is arbitrary and contrary to the terms of auction. A concluding contract had come into being, on acceptance of the bid and on deposit of 25% of the earnest money. The very act of acceptance of the earnest money by the Auctioning Officer, without any objection, gave rise to a legitimate expectation in petitioner's mind that they will get the plots in question, on deposit of the balance amount. The petitioners, being the highest, bidders were always ready and willing to abide by their obligation, in terms of the bid, made at the time of auction. There was no valid reason for cancelling the bids. The petitioners had a legitimate right to the plots. There was every reason for the petitioners to believe that the D.D.A. would accept the balance amount, which the petitioner were willing to pay on demand. Right accrued to the petitioners on acceptance of the earnest money at the time of auction. The highest bid was above the reserve price. There was no other conditions in the auction, which would disentitle the petitioners to the plot in question. It was because of the operation of the stay of this Court that the Vice Chairman proceeded to pass an order rejecting the bids, which order is wholly bad in law. The same is liable to be set aside. Even after the notification of Central Government had been published D.D.A. in its application (C.M.7359/95) reiterated that due to the operation of stay the auction purchasers were being prejudiced and as such direction deserves to be issued to the D.D.A. to confirm the bids and to accept from the petitioners the balance amount payable and to deliver possession of the plots to them. The Vice Chairman did not proceed to cancel the bid because of inadequacy of the price at the relevant time. The petitioners were highest bidders and deposited 25% of the bid money in 1984, which amount is still with the D.D.A. and as such equity being in petitioners' favour the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
27. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged that there is no question of the petitioners' acquiring any right. The act of declaring them to be the highest bidder and deposit of 25% of the bid money alone does not confer any right. Right would have accrued only on acceptance of the bid by the Vice Chairman and not at any stage prior thereto. Terms and conditions clearly stipulated that the bid is subject to confirmation by the Vice Chairman. No concluded contract came into being and would not come into being unless the bid is accepted. Reference was made to Rule 29 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, which reads:
"29. Sale to the highest bidder.
The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept, subject to confirmation by the Vice Chairman, the highest bid offered at the fall of the hammer in the auction and the person whose bid had been accepted shall pay as earnest money, a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid and he shall pay the balance amount to tile Authority within fifteen days of acceptance of the bid or within such period as the Vice Chairman may specify in the public notice under rule 27 or in another public notice:
Provided that Vice Chairman may extend the last date of payment where he is satisfied that sufficient reason exists for doing so, up to a maximum of 180 days subject to payment of interest on the balance amount of the rate of 18% per annum where the delay is thirty days or less and 25% per annum for a period exceeding 30 days."
28. There is also no question of any legitimate expectation in this case, as the petitioners were made aware of the slay orders passed in Civil Writ No. 325/85. Because of the stay there was no question of confirmation of bid. Moreover, prior to the issuance of the notification by the Central Government in the year 1994, the bid could not have been accepted. It was only after 1994 that plots in question could have been put to auction. The petitioners despite notice, which was duly served in 1986 of their own volition, neither received back the amount, which had been deposited by them, nor retained any right with them and as such are not entitled to seek enforcement of any of the alleged rights in writ jurisdiction.
29. We have considered respective submissions made at the bar. The competence of the Chairman, D.D.A. to accept or reject die bid was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Kusum Lata Khjanchi and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., . Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal and Ors. and referring to three other decisions of this Court in Smt Mamta Taneja v. D.DA. and Ors., C.W.P. 2457/90 decided on 18.3.1991; Arun Kanotra and Ors. v. D.DA. and Anr., CWP 1556/92 decided on 20.3.1995 and Dr. Hotchandani and Ors. v. D.D.A.; CW.P.250/95 decided on 17.10.1995, it was held that there is a discretion conferred on Vice Chairman, D.D.A. to accept or not to accept a bid, in spite of the same having been accepted by the officer conducting the sale. It was also held that, in the absence of allegation of mala fide against the Vice Chairman, when the decision is reasonable one, which a reasonable man guided by relevant considerations could have taken in the circumstances of the case, the same will not be liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The decision in Kusum Lata Khajanchi's case (supra) was followed with approval by another Division Bench in Amrit Lal Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority, C.W. No. 404/85, decided on 16.5.1997.
30. In Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996) 4 S.C.C.1081, it was held that even if public auction had been completed and a person is declared to be the highest bidder, no right is accrued in his favour till confirmation letter had been issued. This was so held after making reference to the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1958. The conditions of the auction in the said case also stipulated that the bid was subject to confirmation.
31. Following the ratio in Laxmikant's case (Supra), it has to be held that the rights of the parties would be governed by the rules and the terms and conditions of the auction under which a right was reserved to the Vice Chairman either to accept or reject the bid. Decision has been taken by the Vice Chairman to reject the bid. Reason for rejection is the pendency of Civil Writ No. 325/85 and the stay granted therein restraining the D.D.A. to confirm the bid. Needless to add that in the said Writ Petition No. 325/85 the very act of the D.D.A. in putting the plots to auction was challenged on the ground that it had no authority to put such plots to auction, which as per the Master Plan were within green area. By the time decision was taken by the Vice Chairman, Master Plan had not been modified. It was modified only in 1994. There was no prohibition in the Vice Chairman in not taking a decision for rejecting the bid. The only restraint against D.D.A. was that bid was not to be accepted. It was in this back ground that when the auctions were subject matter of challenge, because of competence of D.D.A. to auction the plots and there was stay operating, instead of keeping the matter pending or alive, the Vice Chairman proceeded to take a decision to reject the bids and the D.D.A. duly informed the petitioners of rejection of bids. They were also asked to take back the amount deposited by them and an option was left with them that they will be at liberty to offer their bid in any future auction. As such the decision of the Vice Chairman, taken in those circumstances, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Such a decision on the ratio of the judgment in Kusum Lata Khajanchi's case (supra) will not be liable to be interfered with inasmuch as there is no mala fide alleged against the Vice Chairman. The decision of the Vice Chairman is such, which could reasonably be taken by any prudent man in the facts and circumstances of such a case. There is also no question of any legitimate expectation since on mere acceptance of the bid, no right accrued, which could become enforceable as per the decision in Laxmikant's case (supra).
32. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that it was necessary for the respondent to have communicated the reasons for rejection of the bid and as such the reasons were not communicated, the decision is bad. Such a contention, on the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Star Enterprises etc. etc. v. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors. has also no force. No doubt as per the decision in M/s. Star Enterprises etc.'$ case (supra), it would be but appropriate for any public authority, when highest offer is rejected for sufficient reasons, to indicate in the order such reason and the stand of the Appropriate Authority be made available so as to enable the affected party to challenge the same in appropriate Court of Law. 3ut mere non communication of the grounds of rejection will not make any difference and will not have the effect of nullifying the act of the Vice Chairman in rejecting the bid, since it would be open for the party affected to seek a direction against the D.D.A. to disclose reasons to enable it to challenge the same. There was not much and inordinate delay in conveying to the petitioners the order of rejection, which was conveyed in the month of April, 1986. The respondent/D.D.A. could not have, prior to the year 1994 when modification in Master Plan was made, put the plots in question to auction. These were not residential plots. The area became residential only in 1994. Therefore, the D.D.A. could have put the same to auction only thereafter and not prior thereto. No right vested in the petitioners. Their bids were rejected. They were duly informed. Thus there is no other equity in their favour as of today. The mere fact that the amount has remained with the D.D.A. will not make any difference. While conveying the decision, the D.D.A. asked the petitioners to take back the amount and also reserved right with the petitioners to participate in future auction.
33. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to quash and set aside the communication dated 24.4.1986.
34. While dismissing the Civil Writ No. 325/85 as infructuous because of the issuance of notification during the pendency of the writ petition modifying the Master Plan, the other petitions (C.Ws. 1795/86, 568/87 and 3060/91) are dismissed. All miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.