JUDGMENT : A. N. Varma, J. 1. The petition assails the validity of an order passed by the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority ('G. D. A.' for short hereafter) cancelling the bid of Devi Shankar Agarwal, the petitioner no. 2, who was the highest bidder at an auction held by the G. D. A. on 16-8-85 for allotment of commercial multi-storeyed plots at Raj Nagar District Centre, Ghaziabad, under permanent leases. 2. These are the essential facts. An advertisement was issued by the G. D. A. for allotment of twelve plots for multi-storeyed Commercial complexes at Raj Nagar District Centre. The date fixed for the auction was 16-8-85. The terms and conditions for auction published in the advertisement were :- (i) Entry by Demand Draft of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the G. D. A. ; (ii) 25% of the bid amount to be paid at the fall of hammer ; and (iii) The remaining 75% to be paid within sixty days from the date of the letter of acceptance to be issued by the Vice-Chairman, G. D. A. The advertisement further mentioned that the detailed terms and conditions were available from the G. D. A. Ghaziabad. In pursuance of this advertisement the auction of nine plots took place on 16-8-85. We are concerned here with the auction of plot no. A-4 measuring 700 sq. metres. The petitioner who had deposited Rs.25,000/,- as entry fee was adjudged the highest bidder, he having offered to pay at the rate of Rs.760/,- per sq. metre. He accordingly deposited a further sum of Rs.1,08,000/- on the fall of the hammer, which amount together with the deposit of Rs.25,000/- aggregated Rs.1,33,000/ representing 25% of the total amount offered by the said petitioner for the plot in question. The file containing the bid sheet and the report prepared by the committee comprising three officers of the G. D. A., namely, Superintending Engineer, Deputy Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer conducting the auction sale of the nine plots held on 16-8-85 was submitted to the Vice-Chairman. The report stated that in pursuance of the advertisement issued for the auction of plots for multi-storeyed Commercial plots, the auction was held in the presence of the Board of Officers. Nine plots were put to auction at which the highest bids ranged around Rs.750/- per sq. metre which seemed low and unsatisfactory. The report stated that in pursuance of the advertisement issued for the auction of plots for multi-storeyed Commercial plots, the auction was held in the presence of the Board of Officers. Nine plots were put to auction at which the highest bids ranged around Rs.750/- per sq. metre which seemed low and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Committee/the Board of Officers recommended that the bids be cancelled. By his order dated 5-9-85 the Vice-Chairman accepted the recommendation of the Board of Officers and cancelled the allotment order. Subsequently the petitioner received a letter dated 7-10-85 from the Accounts Officer of the G. D. A. along with a cheque of the G. D. A. for Rs.1,33,000/- stating that the amount deposited by the petitioner was being refunded to him. This was in pursuance of the decision of the Vice-Chairman cancelling the petitioner's bid. 3. The petitioners assailed the validity of the order of the Vice-Chairman cancelling their bid broadly on two grounds : first, that the decision of the Vice-Chairman cancelling the petitioners' bid was founded on extraneous considerations and is otherwise too manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law; second, that the G. D. A. has discriminated against the petitioners inasmuch as in circumstances materially similar to those obtaining in respect of plot no. A-4, by an order dated 25-9-85 passed after the cancellation of the petitioner's bid, the Vice-Chairman accepted the bid of another individual, namely, Sri Randhir Chopra for a plot in the same area, namely, Raj Nagar District Centre Commercial Complex in pursuance of an auction held only ten days before the auction of the petitioners' plot at the rate of Rs.760/- per sq. metre the same rate which was offered by the petitioners for the disputed plot. 4. We will take up the first of these two issues first. We are constrained to observe at the very outset that though in the petition it has been asserted that the petitioners' bid has been cancelled on extraneous considerations, no details in respect of this charge have been furnished. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to support this ground by referring to circumstances emerging from the affidavits and the original record produced before us by the G. D. A. which, in his submission, clearly established that the cancellation was not founded on the grounds on which it purports to be but for some other reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to support this ground by referring to circumstances emerging from the affidavits and the original record produced before us by the G. D. A. which, in his submission, clearly established that the cancellation was not founded on the grounds on which it purports to be but for some other reasons. It was urged that on the own showing of the G. D. A. as emerging from the affidavits filed on their behalf the sector or circle rates prevalent on the relevant date for such plots, namely 16-8-85, was Rs. 750/- per sq. metre which was admittedly lower than that offered by the petitioner for the plot in question. The inadequacy of the price offered by the petitioner, it was contended, could not hence have been the real reason for rejecting his bid. It was further submitted that in any case the revised rates prescribed by the G. D. A. raising the old sector or circle rates by 50% became effective only from 18-10-85, i.e., after the date on which the auction in question took place. The revised rates could not hence be treated as a valid basis for judging whether the petitioner's offer was low. Having given the matter our careful consideration we find no merit in these contentions. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the G. D. A. it has been asserted that the sector rate of Rs.750/- per sq. metre for commercial plots fixed last in 1983, had undergone significant escalation since then warranting a fresh look for an upward revision of the old rates and the matter was already under consideration at the time of the impugned auction before a committee appointed by the G. D. A. for that purpose to go into the whole issue. This exercise for an upward revision of the existing rates fixed in 1983 had been undertaken at the instance of the A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad. The committee consisted of the A. D. M. (Finance), Secretary, G. D. A., Special Officer, G. D. A. and the Competent Officer City Board. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that no doubt the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. The committee consisted of the A. D. M. (Finance), Secretary, G. D. A., Special Officer, G. D. A. and the Competent Officer City Board. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that no doubt the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. metre was fixed by the G. D. A. after the auction but at the same time the fact that the rates fixed in 1983 had become obsolete in view of the significant rise in the sector rates since they were last fixed, was known to the Board of Officers conducting the sale which made the recommendation for rejection of the petitioner's bid as well as the Vice-Chairman who eventually rejected the petitioner's bid. It is also stated that there was no reserve rate of Rs.750/- fixed for the auction. Consequently, the Vice-Chairman taking note of the escalation in the sector rates rejected the petitioner's bid on the same ground on which he had rejected the bids of all others who had participated at the auction for nine plots held on 16-8-85. 5. On the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the G. D. A. The correctness of which we have no reason to doubt as well as upon a perusal of the original files pertaining to the impugned auction which were produced before us by the learned counsel for the G. D. A., we find it impossible to hold that the decision of the Vice-Chairman rejecting the petitioner's bid was founded on any extraneous consideration or was otherwise arbitrary. Clauses (v) and (vi) of the terms and conditions of allotment by auction prescribed by the G. D. A. provide ; "(v) The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept, subject to the confirmation by the Vice-Chairman, the highest bid offered at the fall of hammer at the auction and the person whose bid has been accepted shall pay as earnest money a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid either in cash or by bank draft in favour of the Ghaziabad Development Authority at the fall of the hammer in the event of non-deposit of the amount of 25% the amonnt of Rs.25,000/- deposited as earnest money shall forfeit to the G. D. A. (vi) The officer conducting the auction may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and submitted to the Vice-Chairman reject any bid including the highest bid." 6. These clauses read together leave no manner of doubt that the auction is subject to the confirmation by the Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairman as the final authority had the report of the Board of Officers conducting the auction of the nine plots including the disputed plot no. A-4 before him. The Board of Officers in their report had stated that the price offered by the bidders at the auction of these nine plots was low and inadequate and the bids ought not, therefore, to be accepted. The Board of Officers as well as the Vice-Chairman could reasonably be presumed to have been aware that the sector rates fixed in 1983 had become obsolete as the value of land in that area had escalated significantly since it was last fixed in 1983. The Vice-Chairman was aware, as asserted in the counter affidavit, of this phenomenon. A committee comprising, inter alia, the Secretary and the Special Officer of the G. D. A. had already been constituted to go into the issue of revising the old sector rates in view of the rising trend in the sector rates. That there has been a substantial increase in the sector rates since 1983 is amply borne out by the minutes of the meeting of the committee appointed to go into the revision of sector rates as well as of the resolution of the G. D. A. passed on 18-10-85 revising the old rates from Rs.750/- per sq. metre to Rs.1,000/- per sq. metre. The exercise of power by the Vice-Chairman in rejecting the petitioner's bid along with those of others could not in the face of this material be regarded as either arbitrary or founded on any .extraneous consideration. Not accepting the bid on the ground that the same was low and inadequate was a legitimate consideration on the basis of which the Vice-Chairman could decline the offers made by the highest bidders for the nine plots. There was no reserve rate fixed for the auction and consequently the Vice-Chairman was free to reject the bids even if the same were around the rates fixed in 1983. There was no reserve rate fixed for the auction and consequently the Vice-Chairman was free to reject the bids even if the same were around the rates fixed in 1983. The fact that the new rates fixed by the G. D. A. became effective from 18-10-85 i.e., subsequent to to the rejection of the bid by the Vice-Chairman on 5-9-85 could also not furnish a ground of attack against the decision of the Vice-Chairman inasmuch as the rising trend in the sector rates had already been noticed. The Vice- Chairman was hence not barred from satisfying himself whether the rates offered by the bidders were adequate even independently of the decision of the G. D. A. dated 18-10-85 revising the old rates with effect from that date. He could even on 5-9-85, in order to satisfy himself about the propriety of accepting the bids, examine for himself whether the bids should be accepted, in the absence of any restrictions on his power or any reserve price fixed in the advertisement issued for the auction of the plots. 7. Further, the decision of the G. D. A. dated 18-10-85 revising the old rates with effect from that date merely gave a formal recognition to the increase in the rates of commercial plots since they were last fixed in 1983. The resolution of the G. D. A. dated 18-10-1985 could not be regarded as a legitimate basis for inferring that the increase in the rates took place only on and from, that date, namely, 18-10-85 and not before that. 8. Moreover the fact that the Vice-Chairman was not actuated by extraneous considerations and that his decision was not capricious or whimsical is fortified by the further fact that the bids in respect of all the nine commercial plots falling in the same sector were rejected on the same ground and. by the same order. It was thus not as if the petitioner was singled out as was sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Again, that there was a rising trend in the land value is also borne out by the circumstance that this very plot when reauctioned on 14-6-88 after the rejection of the petitioners' bid attracted an offer of Rs.1,250/- per sq. metre. This Court, therefore, holds that the decision of the Vice Chairman was neither arbitrary nor governed by any extraneous considerations. metre. This Court, therefore, holds that the decision of the Vice Chairman was neither arbitrary nor governed by any extraneous considerations. Cancellation was, in our considered view based solely on the simple fact that the reigning price of land was far above the offered bids. Learned counsel next attempted to submit that the record pertaining to the auction of these plots has been tampered with inasmuch as the petitioner would not have been called upon to deposit 25 per cent of the amount of his bid if the officers conducting the auction had rejected his bid. Referring to clause (v) of the terms and conditions noted above, learned counsel submitted that the question of deposit of 25 per cent arises only when the highest bid is accepted and not when the same is rejected. The report of the Board of Officers conducting the auction which finds place on the record, learned counsel contended, showing that the Board recommended to the Vice Chairman that the bids should be rejected, is thus clearly an indication that the document has been prepared for the purpose of this litigation. 9. We are unable to agree. The mere deposit of 25 per cent of the amount on the fall of hammer does not lend any support to the argument. In the first place, the charge is not borne out by any intrinsic evidence existing on record. The notings on the files and the contents thereof indicate that they were maintained in the usual course. There is nothing whatever to suspect the authenticity or genuineness of the record of proceedings maintained by the G. D. A. 10. Secondly, the deposit of 25 per cent on the fall of hammer under clause (v) was in the usual course as the officers conducting the sale did not have the final authority either to accept or to reject the highest bid, the same having been made expressly subject to the confirmation by the Vice Chairman. Therefore, there was nothing unusual if the officers conducting the auction required the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent irrespective of whether in their opinion the offer was adequate or otherwise as the final decision on the bid rested with the Vice Chairman. The charge that the record was tampered with has, therefore, no basis. Therefore, there was nothing unusual if the officers conducting the auction required the petitioner to deposit 25 per cent irrespective of whether in their opinion the offer was adequate or otherwise as the final decision on the bid rested with the Vice Chairman. The charge that the record was tampered with has, therefore, no basis. Learned counsel next submitted that the report submitted by the Board of Officers conducting the auction on 16-8-1985 itself indicates that there was a reserve price of Rs.750/- per sq. metre. The G. D. A.'s claim that there was no reserve price is hence false. 11. We cannot agree. Undisputedly in the advertisement issued for the auction and in the terms and conditions prescribed therefor no reserve price was fixed. The term 'reserve price' in the report has obviously been loosely used for sector rates. Rs.750/- per sq. meter was the circle or sector rate prescribed in 1983. This is also borne out by annexure C.A. 2 containing the extracts of the minutes of the meetings of the committee appointed for revising the rates as well as of the G. D. A. accepting the Committees' recommendation in which the term issued is 'rates'. Incidentally we may add that the concept of reserve price does not imply that the authority stands barred from rejecting the highest bid even if the same happens to be a little higher than the reserve price on ligitimate groundss such as the officer being much below the reigning land value. 12. While at this point we may briefly comment on a decision of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 822 of 1983 Subhash Arora v. Delhi Development Authority, on which counsel placed strong reliance. In that case, the learned Judge held that if no reserve price is announced at the time of the auction, the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority would not be competent to reject the highest bid which was accepted by the officer conducting the sale even though under the terms and conditions the acceptance by the officer was subject to the confirmation by the Vice Chairman. We regret our inability to share the view expressed by the learned Judge. We regret our inability to share the view expressed by the learned Judge. With great respect, there is no basis, either in precedents or any principle, for holding that in the absence of announcement of a reserve price and where the bids are made subject to the approval of a higher authority, it is not competent to such higher authority to examine whether the highest bid offered at the auction is adequate and is below the prevailing rates. The non-acceptance by such authority must however, be based on some ligitimate and rational grounds. Inadequacy of the offers, if there is material to indicate that the offers are substantially below the reigning price or land value can, in our opinion, furnish a valid ground for rejecting the bid even if no reserve price was announced at the time of auction. 13. That takes us to the second contention founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. This submission was based on an averment which was made for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 5 of which it was asserted that the G. D. A. has discriminated against the petitioner by accepting the bid of Rs.760/- per sq. meter offered by one Randhir Chopra in respect of a plot in the same sector at an auction held on 6-8-85 by its order dated 25-5-85. The plea, therefore, it was contended, raised by the respondent that the offer of the petitioner was rejected because the same was low was obviously false and demonstrated that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary. 14. AS the aforesaid plea was raised for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit, the G. D. A. was given an opportunity to file a supplementary counter affidavit giving reply to the aforesaid averment. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been asserted that the allotment of the plot was for a cinema building and that the same could not be used for multi-storeyed building. In reply to that the petitioner filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of the agreement of lease executed by the G. D. A. in respect of this plot which indicated that apart from the cinema building the allottee was also permitted to use the land for constructing a commercial complex. In reply to that the petitioner filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of the agreement of lease executed by the G. D. A. in respect of this plot which indicated that apart from the cinema building the allottee was also permitted to use the land for constructing a commercial complex. On the basis of these facts learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been clearly discriminated against as their case was at par with the allottee of the other plot mentioned above. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect but we regret our inability to accept the petitioner's contention. From a perusal of the agreement to lease it appears that the owner of the plot was allotted the land for making a cinema building with provision for 800 seats. He was, however, also allowed to construct as a part of the design a commercial wing on the ground floor. Considerations which may enter while making allotment of plots for construction of a cinema building, we do venture to think, may legitimately differ from those obtaining in the case of allotment made for commercial complexes. The allotment made in favour of the cinema builders was primarily and essentially for running cinema though the builders were also permitted, as part of the design, to construct commercial wing for ground floor coverage of maximum 1,200 sq. metres and upper floor coverage of maximum 6,000 sq. metres to a height of six floors. There can, in our considered view, be no parity between the case of the petitioner and that of the cinema builders. A cinema building is in the nature of a public building designed to cater to the needs of the public at large. Leases granted for purposes like cinema, educational institutions, public parks, hospitals etc. constitute a class by themselves. Further, plot no. A-4 measures only 700 sq. metres, while the plot allotted to the cinema building is a huge plot measuring 3600 sq. metres. There is thus no parity between the petitioners' case and that of the plot allotted to the cinema builders. 15. Finally, it may be remembered that together with the petitioner's bid, the bids of nine others for similar plots falling in the same sector auctioned for the same purpose were also cancelled on the same ground. Among the equals, therefore, there was no discrimination. 15. Finally, it may be remembered that together with the petitioner's bid, the bids of nine others for similar plots falling in the same sector auctioned for the same purpose were also cancelled on the same ground. Among the equals, therefore, there was no discrimination. The petitioner could claim equality only with those who were similarly situated and not with those not falling in his category. We, therefore, reject the contention that there was any discrimination in the matter of allotment. 16. There remains one more submission which was pressed somewhat half heartedly. The contention was that the G. D. A. having accepted and credited to its account the amount deposited by it and the officers conducting the auction having got the application for allotment signed by the petitioners, it was estopped from cancelling the allotment. A complete answer to this submission is furnished by the fact that the bids were made expressly subject to the approval of the Vice Chairman. The latter was hence free to reject the bid notwithstanding the deposit of 25 per cent of the amount of the bid. In the premise, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim orders stand discharged. Petition dismissed.