Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdev Group Industries vs The Rajasthan State Industrial ... on 21 September, 2021
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3426/2021
Ramdev Group Industries, Through Its Partner Bhoma Ram S/o
Shri Daraga Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 5, Goliya Dhani,
Manoharji Ka Vas, Jaswani Pura, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Cooperation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur 302005 Through Advisor (Infra).
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Cooperation
Limited, Ambaji Industrial Area, Abu Road.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3464/2021
1. Uda Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 50
Years, Caste Choudhary, R/o Sanwalawas, Vandhar,
Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Abhishek Salecha S/o Shri Arjun Salecha, Aged About 42
Years, Caste Jain, R/o Pwd Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Cooperation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur 302005 Through Advisor (Infra).
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Cooperation
Limited, Ambaji Industrial Area, Abu Road, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3474/2021
Uk Singh S/o Shri Hadmat Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Karda Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Cooperation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur 302005 Through Advisor (Infra).
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Cooperation
Limited, Ambaji Industrial Area, Abu Road, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-3426/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order 21/09/2021 Since common issue is involved in these writ petitions, hence they are decided together.
Following prayer has been made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3426/2021:-
"i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned result Annex.5 may kindly be declared null and void and respondents may be directed to allot the plots No. G1-235(B) and G1-235(C) to the petitioner.
ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case may warrant be also passed in favour of the petitioner and,
iii) Petitioner may be awarded the costs of this writ petition."
The brief facts of the case are that respondents, (to be referred as RIICO), issued E-Auction notice dated 24.01.2021 by which invited the bidding for allotment of plots in various categories in the RIICO Area through E-Auction Bidding System including RIICO I/A Growth Centre Phase-II, Abu Road.
In pursuance to allotment of plots in the RIICO I/A Growth Centre Phase-II, Abu Road, the offer made by the petitioners were above then the reserved rates.
The case of the petitioner for allotment of plot was considered in a meeting dated 15.02.2021 and the Auction Committee has rejected the offer made by the petitioners on the (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] ground that in the same area, the offer made by the petitioners are lower then the other bidders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent RIICO has accepted various bids which have been received as single bids situated in the area, whereas the bids received by the RIICO, for the petitioners, pertaining to Industrial plots situated in the same area was rejected. Therefore, rejection of the above leads to discrimination.
Learned counsel further submits that directions issued by RIICO from time to time with regard to E-Auction were not followed. It is also submitted that prior to rejection, notice was not served.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Bandeep Singh and Ors. rendered in 2016(1) SCC 724 wherein in para Nos. 6 and 7, it has been held as under:-
"(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 (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] 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 percent of the sale consideration and have tendered the entire remainder. Learned counsel appearing for the 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 appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the E-Auction Policy, RIICO reserves the right to cancel the highest bid offered by any person. It is submitted that Auction Committee has (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM) (5 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] rejected the bids offered by the petitioners as their bids were lower to other successful bidders in the same area.
Counsel, in support of his contentions relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of:-
1. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited in which Para 28 and 30, it has been 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 (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM) (6 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] 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 terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated 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."
2. Komal Aggrawal and State of Rajasthan and Ors in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 274/2012 wherein it has been held 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.(Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM)
(7 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] 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 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.(Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM)
(8 of 8) [CW-3426/2021] 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 respective parties and perused the records.
These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons that firstly, the petitioners have participated in the E-Auction after carefully reading the terms and conditions of the Auction and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the RIICO reserves the 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 offers made by the petitioners were rejected by the Auction Committee. Thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority(supra) as well as 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 Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J 28,30,31-jayesh/-
(Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 08:54:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)