Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakuntla Devi vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & ... on 9 February, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
CWP No.2319 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2319 of 2012
Date of decision:- 09.02.2012
Shakuntla Devi ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority & others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, on 28.12.2011, whereby the reasons for not accepting the highest bid of the petitioner were communicated.
The petitioner participated in the auction process for the purchase of shop-cum-flats at Sirsa on 07.06.2005. The bid offered by the petitioner was in the sum of Rs.14,20,000/-. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- i.e. 10% of the bid amount, at the spot. However, while the auction in respect of other sites were confirmed, but the bid of the Petitioner in respect of the site for which the petitioner gave the bid, was not confirmed.
The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, which was allowed, but was dismissed in appeal by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, wherein a CWP No.2319 of 2012 2 direction was issued to pass a speaking order. It was in pursuance of such direction, a speaking order was passed, which is impugned in the writ petition.
Learned Chief Administrator, HUDA, has recorded that the site, for which the petitioner has given bid, is a corner/preferential site and has fetched less price in auction than the ordinary sites. It is also pointed out that the reserve price for the said site is Rs.10,57,432/-, whereas the ordinary site No.30 was auctioned for Rs.14,25,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.10,15,432/-. The less price offered for a corner/preferential plot was a ground for not confirming the bid offered by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in case Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana & others, AIR 2007 Punjab and Haryana 167, in order to contend that the reasons for not accepting the bid should have been conveyed to the petitioner.
In terms of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulation, 1978 (for short 'the Regulation'), the Haryana Urban Development Authority can sell or lease the land or building by allotment or by auction. Regulation 6 deals with sale or lease of land or building by auction. The relevant Regulation reads as under:
6. Sale or lease of land or building by auction - (1) In the case of sale or lease by auction the price/premium to be charged shall be such reserve price/premium as may be determined taking into consideration the various factors as indicated in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 4 or any higher amount determined as a result of bidding in open auction.
(2) 10 per cent of the highest bid shall be paid on the spot by the highest bidder in cash or by means of a demand draft in the manner CWP No.2319 of 2012 3 specified in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5. The successful bidder shall be issued allotment letter in form 'CC' or C-II by registered post and another 15 per cent of the bid accepted shall be payable by the successful acceptance of the bid by the Chief Administrator; failing which the 10 per cent amount already deposited shall stand forfeited to the Authority and the successful bidder shall have no claim to the land or building auctioned. (3) The payment of balance of the price/premium, rate of interest chargeable and the recovery of interest shall be in the same manner as provided in sub-regulations (6) & (7) of Regulation-5. (4) The general terms and conditions of the auction shall be such as may be framed by the Chief Administrator from time to time and announced to the public before auction on the spot. A perusal of Regulation 6(2) shows that the bid is to be accepted by the Chief Administrator and 15 per cent of the bid accepted shall be payable thereafter after the issuance of allotment letter.
The Full Bench judgment in Subhash Chand's case (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, has approved the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 282 in respect of the issues arising in the present case. In the said case, the Court was considering Rule 5 of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Property by Public Auction. Such Rule contemplated that the Settlement Commissioner or other officer is not bound to accept the highest or other bids nor are they bound to disclose reasons therefor. While considering the said Rule, the Court observed as under:
"8. .....As earlier observed, under this sub-rule, the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer has an absolute power not to accept the highest or other bids and not to disclose his reasons therefor, but refusing to disclose reasons can by no stretch of imagination be interpreted to mean that the Settlement Commissioner or other CWP No.2319 of 2012 4 Officer is not bound to give reasons. There is difference between not disclosing the reasons' and non-giving of reasons'. In Black's Law Dictionary, the meaning of the word 'disclosed' is - To bring into view by uncovering; to expose; to make known, to lay bare, to reveal to knowledge; to free from secrecy or ignorance, or make known'. A thing can be disclosed only when it so exists; but in case it does not exist, then the question of disclosure does not arise. By using the word 'disclose', the intention of the rule-making authority is absolutely clear that while declining to accept the highest bid or other bids, the officer concerned is bound to give reasons and the only right available to him is not to disclose those reasons. Moreover, this non- disclousre of reasons, in my view, is meant for the bidders i.e. That the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer is not bound to tell them as to on what grounds has he not accepted their bid. If the intention of the rule making authority had been to vest the officer concerned with a power to refuse to accept the highest bid without assigning any reasons, then instead of 'shall not be bound to disclose his reasons', the words would have been 'shall not be bound to give his reasons'. In this view of the matter, I hold that the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer is bound to record reasons for declining to accept the highest or other bids. Once this conclusion is arrived at, there can be no gainsaying that such reasons have to be relevant and not whimsical or arbitrary. ....."
After observing so, the Court concluded as under:
"12. Thus, as a result of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer under sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of the Rules is bound to record reasons which are relevant for refusing to accept the highest bid or other bids, that such reasons have not to be disclosed to the highest bidder, that in case an action refusing to accept the highest bid is challenged in a Court of law, then the reasons given for refusing to accept the bid have to be made available so as to enable the Court to find out if the same are relevant and germane to the non-acceptance of the bid and that the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer cannot arbitrarily, whimsically and without assigning any reasons refuse to accept the highest bid or other bids."
Later the Full Bench in Subhash Chand's case (supra) has held to the following effect while referring to the earlier decision:
"9. .....the Full Bench further held that every order of the State or its CWP No.2319 of 2012 5 functionaries has to meet the twin-test of '"reason" and "relevance"
and they cannot pass a vagarious order it was held that the competent authority is duty bound under the Rules to record relevant reasons for refusing to accept the highest or other bid, even though such reasons may not necessarily be disclosed to the bidders but are required to be placed before the Court in the process of judicial review." The Court later concluded that the State Government cannot refuse to confirm the highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons.
Keeping in view the aforesaid dictum of law, we find that the reasons for rejecting the highest bid submitted by the petitioner are available on the records of the competent authority. The petitioner has given bid for the corner/preferential plot, but the price offered is less than the ordinary site. The public property has to be sold in such manner so as to ensure the realization of the maximum price.
The reasoning recorded by the authority in rejecting the highest bid cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable and unjustified, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE February 09, 2012 ajp/vimal