Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. A reference is made to Rule 27(4)(iv) of the OMMC Rules to point out that each of the successful bidders had complied with all the mandatory requirements spelt out therein, including production of the solvency certificate/Bank Guarantee and royalty for the minimum guarantee quantity once a year along with additional immovable property obtained from the revenue authority. It is submitted that, under Rules 27 (5) and (7) of the OMMC Rules, the procedure for declaring each of the Petitioners as the successful bidder was duly complied with. It is submitted under Rule 27(9) that it is only in the event of default by the selected bidder that the competent authority may issue intimation to the next highest bidder to be required to convey its acceptance and make security deposit in the manner mentioned in Rule 27(7) of the OMMC Rules.

11. It is pointed out that, in the letter dated 17th May, 2021 by Opposite Party No.3 to each of the petitioners informing that the auction has been cancelled, a reference was made to Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, which, in fact, talks of a contingency where the second highest bidder quotes "an unusually low price in comparison to the highest bidder of the same source or other sources", which alone could then justify the cancellation of the bid and inviting tenders afresh. It is pointed out that, on the admitted facts of the present cases, since the ostensible reason was that there was only one valid bid, Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules has no application. This is put forth as an additional ground to challenge the impugned decision to cancel the auction on account of non- application of mind.

16. The above submissions have been considered. In the present case, the source of power of the Collector to cancel the auction can be traced in Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules. The Court notes that there has been no challenge by any of the Petitioners to the validity of the said Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules, which expressly confers on the Collector the power to cancel any bid by recording the reasons therefor "if he is not satisfied with the publicity, participation of bidders, and amount of additional charges quoted". It is obvious that such power is to be exercised in a just fair and reasonable manner. That in fact is the scope of judicial review of the impugned letter dated 17th May 2021.

21. On a careful perusal of Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, which lists in detail the steps to be taken for the grant of lease in favour of the successful bidder in respect of the Sairat Sources, it is seen that the declaration of a bidder as a successful one and sending him an intimation in Form-F is but one of the steps in the process. It is followed by the important stage of execution of the agreement. Till such time an agreement is executed, it cannot be said that there is any vested right in the successful bidder to have the lease allotted in its favour. In other words, as long as the agreement is not signed, it cannot be said that the Collector, in terms of Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules, is precluded from taking a decision, for valid reasons, to cancel the auction.