Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel made further submissions with reference to the minutes of the e-auction held on 18.01.2022 to 20.01.2022 filed as Annexure-R/1, wherein the committee after observing that out of total 75 plots put in e-auction, 60 plots received multiple bids, 11 plots received single bids and no bids were received for 04 plots. The committee recommended for rejection of single bids for 11 plots as 'first time bids have been invited and no competition has taken place.' It rejected multiple bids for 11 plots as committee had recommended rejection of single bids having rates of 1210-1260 per m2, for 16 plots having range (8 of 14) [CW-2995/2022] 1270-1500 per m2 as there was significant variation in the rates having range 1210 to 3000 sqm., the plots having bid rate 1500 per sqm. and less was 38 and plots having rates about 1500 per sqm. was 33 and half of the maximum rate quoted was 1500 per sqm. upto 21 bidders for the same plot and therefore, the bids were rejected for plots where the rates were received between 1270 per sqm. and 1500 per sqm. The bids received at the rate of 1510-2000 for 09 plots and more than 2000 for 24 plots were approved by the Unit Level Committee.

Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have filed an additional affidavit alongwith a map indicating the disputed plots alongwith the plots which have obtained higher rates. Both nature of plots have been marked in different colours.

A perusal of the said map clearly shows that the rejected single / multiple bid plots and the approved bids plots, all are similarly situated. Not a single disputed plot, is having location, of such a nature whereby the difference in the bid rates can be justified and/or it can be concluded that on account of the nature of location, the bid rate was justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners also failed to make any submissions to justify the difference.

In the present case, the RIICO authorities have placed full material on record justifying its action of canceling the bids. It is pointed out that in large number of cases, multiple bids of much higher value were offered for adjacent plots. Whereas in some of the cases, there were single bids and the price offered was marginally over the offset price. The analysis placed before the Court along with the affidavit filed, would show that other plots were auctioned at the rate of Rs. 1330 per sq. mtrs. to Rs. 1790 per sq. mtrs. which was substantially higher than the bid offered by the petitioner at Rs. 1210 per sq. mtrs."

In the case of Ramdev Group Industries v. RIICO & Anr. :

S.B.C.W.P. No.3426/2021 alongwith connected writ petitions, decided on 21.09.2021, this Court held as under :-
"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.