Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Madhu Bala Bansal W/O Shri Ved Prakash ... vs Rajasthan Housing Board Rajasthan ... on 11 September, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13598/2019
1. Aman Kumar Mandiratta S/o Shri C. L. Mandiratta, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o House No.303/6, Balmiki Marg, Raja
Park Jaipur.
2. Abhinav Asiwal S/o Shri Ramji Lal Asiwal, R/o 119/104,
Agrawal Farm Behind Government Dispensary,
Mansarovar Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Rajasthan Jaipur, Through Its
Chairman, Aavas Bhawan, Janpath, Near Legislative
Assembly, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.
2. Housing Commissioner Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur,
Aavas Bhawan, Janpath, Near Legislative Assembly, Jyoti
Nagar Jaipur.
3. Dy. Housing Commissioner (Circle-Ii), Rajasthan Housing
Board Mansorvar, Agrawal Farm Mansorvar Jaipur.
4. Resident Engineer (Division-Ix) Rajasthan Housing Board,
Near K.l.saini Stadium, Kaveri Path, Mansorvar Jaipur.
----Respondents
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13600/2019
1. Madhu Bala Bansal W/o Shri Ved Prakash Bansal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House No. 2/89, Sfs, Agrawal Farm, Mansrovar, Jaipur.
2. Pavan Kumar Sachdeva S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 77/78, Shipra Path, Mansarovar Jaipur.
3. Smt. Bela Sachdeva W/o Shri Pavan Kumar Sachdeva, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 77/78, Shipra Path, Mansarovar Jaipur.
4. Sunil Kumar Chelani S/o Shri Jhaman Das, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 117/466, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar Jaipur.
5. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Jhaman Das, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 117/466, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar Jaipur.
6. Sita Ram Joshi S/o Shri Kalyan Mal Joshi, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House No. 124/296-7, Thadi Market, Agrawal (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-13600/2019] Farm, Mansarovar Jaipur.
7. Prakash Manglani S/o Shri Dayal Das, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 68/28, Hira Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
8. Keshav Kumar Tolani S/o Shri Tulja Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 117/282, Ajanta Marg, Mansarovar Jaipur.
9. Ram Sewk S/o Shri Kayam Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 69/317, V.t. Road, Mansarovar Jaipur.
10. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 119/550, Thadi Market, Mansarovar Jaipur
11. Savitri Bairwa W/o Shri Ganapat Sahai Bairwa, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 3, Badwali Dhani, Village Kapurawala, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
12. Ravi Prakash Arora S/o Shri Om Prakash Arora, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 77/78, Mansarovar Jaipur.
13. Gokul Arora S/o Shri Om Prakash Arora, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 69/317, V.t. Road, Mansarovar Jaipur.
14. Sunil Kumar Chelani S/o Shri Jhaman Das, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 117/466, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar Jaipur.
15. Krishna Bansal W/o Shri Ankur Bansal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. 2/89, Sfs, Agrawal Farm,mansrovar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board Rajasthan Jaipur, Through Its Chairman, Aavas Bhawan, Janpath, Near Legislative Assembly, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.
2. Housing Commissioner Rajasthan Housing Board Jaipur, Aavas Bhawan, Janpath, Near Legislative Assembly, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.
3. Dy. Housing Commissioner (Circle-Ii), Rajasthan Housing Board Mansorvar, Agrawal Farm Mansorvar Jaipur.
4. Resident Engineer (Division-Ix), Rajasthan Housing Board, Near K.l.saini Stadium, Kaveri Path, Mansorvar Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-13600/2019]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. RP Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Jaiverdhan Shekhawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 11/09/2019
1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners assail the action of the Rajasthan Housing Board in cancelling the bid wherein petitioners participated and were found to be L-1 i.e. highest bidder.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the bid offered by the petitioners was over and above the minimum amount which had been laid down in the advertisement and thus, there was no occasion for the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board to have cancelled the bid and put the property for fresh auction.
3. Mr. RP Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board submits that no right accrues to a successful bidder in an auction bid. He relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time to submit that Housing Board had assessed the value of the property on a higher side and for cogent reason decided to cancel the bid and fresh auction notice has already been issued and 9 of the parties out of the 15, who had earlier participated have already participated in the fresh auction issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board. It is also informed that out of the earlier bidders, 2 of them have been successful.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM)(4 of 6) [CW-13600/2019]
4. I have considered the submissions.
5. Now, the issue with regard to the successful bidder is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 208- Laxmikant & Ors. Vs. Satyawan & Ors. examining the rights of a highest bidder held in para 4 as under:-
"4. Apart from that the High Court overlooked the conditions of auction which had been notified and on basis of which the aforesaid public auction was held. Condition No.3 clearly said that after the auction of the plot was over, the highest bidder had to remit 1/10 of the amount of the highest bid and the balance of the premium amount was to be remitted to the trust office within thirty days 'from the date of the letter informing confirmation of the auction bid in the name of the person concerned'. Admittedly, no such confirmation letter was issued to the respondent. Condition Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are relevant:
"5. The acceptance of the highest bid shall depend on the Board of Trustees.
6. The Trust shall reserve to itself the right to reject the highest or any bid.
7. The person making a highest bid shall have no right to take back his bid. The decision of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees regarding acceptance or rejection of the bid shall be binding on the said person. Before taking the decision as above and informing the same to the individual concerned, if the said individual takes back his bid, the entire amount remitted as deposit towards the amount of bid shall be forfeited by the Trust".
From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra. etc. vs. State of Orissa & ors., 1971(3) SCC 153, State of Orissa and ors. vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal and ors., (1972) 2 SCC 36, Union of India & ors. vs. M/s Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (1970) 2 SCR 594 and State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh and ors., (1982) 2 SCC 365. It has heen repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can be held to be State within (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-13600/2019] the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held."
In another case, arising out of the judgment passed by this Court, the Supreme Court in (2007) 1 SCC 477- Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. G.S. Investments and Anr.
carrying on the aforesaid judgment in Laxmikant (supra) and several other judgments held in para 9 as under:-
"9. This being the settled legal position, the respondent acquired no right to claim that the auction be concluded in its favour and the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the representation but also issuing a further direction to the appellant to issue a demand note of the balance amount. The direction relating to issuance of the demand note for balance amount virtually amounted to confirmation of the auction in favour of the respondent which was not the function of the High Court."
Similar view has been again reiterated by Supreme Court in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 182- Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.Vs. Om Prakash Sharma.
6. While the aforesaid three judgments have been consistent with regard to the rights of the highest bidder, somewhat different approach was adopted by the Supreme Court in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 696- Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. However, this Court finds that in the said judgment, the Apex Court did not refer to the earlier judgments and at the same time the Apex Court wholly was examining whether there are casual or tangible (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-13600/2019] reasons for cancellation. The said judgment will not however, in any manner have application in the present case as cogent reasons have come forward in the reply by the Housing Board with regard to re-auction of the plots of the Housing Board and it is also noticed that fresh auction has already taken place and some of the petitioners have already participated and two of them have also been successful. However, the amount already deposited by the petitioners would be returned alongwith interest @ 8% per annum by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board.
7. In view thereof, the writ petitions found to be without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J N.Gandhi/138-139 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:11:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)