Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1270 (MP)

Bhagwati Enterprises v. State of M. P.

2005-12-12

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission and on applications for vacating interim stay order. Though this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking quashment of the public auction conducted by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in respect of plots No. E-3/4, E-3/115 and E-5/5 situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Arera Colony, Bhopal held on 5.8.2005. The petitioner stated that pursuant to the public notice issued by Collector, Bhopal proposing auction of various plots situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Arera Colony, he deposited security amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for purchase of each plot in which he was interested. He alleged that though the auction of each plot was to be done separately on that date but the auction was conducted on different plots at one point of time. As a result of which he and many others could not participate in the auction of all the plots. In respect of auction of plot No. E-5/5 in which he could participate he alleged that though he was ready and willing to pay Rs. 1.39 crores as sale price for the said plot No. E-5/5, still the auction was finalized in favour of the sixth respondent for Rs. 1.34 crores, thereby the government was put to loss by the Auction Officer. It is further contended that immediately after the said auction he submitted an objection to the Auction Officer and requested for re-auction of said plot No. E-5/5, but no heed was paid to his objection. It is thus contended that the auction process being arbitrary and having caused loss to the public ex-cheque, the same be quashed. Respondents 1 to 5 and respondent No.7 have denied the contentions raised by the petitioner through their reply and applications for vacating the interim stay order. It is stated that the proceedings of the auction (Annexure R-2) demolishes the petitioner's contention that the auctions of all the plots were held at one point of time at different portions of the area which was to be auctioned. It is stated that the auction was held by the second respondent Additional Collector who was the Auction Officer. The auction sale of all the plots was organized at one place. The auction of various plots was done one after another at one place. It is stated that the auction was held by the second respondent Additional Collector who was the Auction Officer. The auction sale of all the plots was organized at one place. The auction of various plots was done one after another at one place. The proceedings of the auction (Annexure R-2) are filed to demonstrate that first of all auction of plot No. E-2/17 was started thereafter auction of plot No. E-3/115 was started likewise the proceedings for auction of various plots one after other was done. The petitioner never offered Rs. 1.39 crores towards price of the said plot No. E-5/5 during the auction process. After the bid of the sixth respondent was accepted and finalized at Rs. 1.34 crores, the petitioner submitted an objection contending that though his offer was for Rs. 1.39 crores it was not accepted. It is further stated that the said objection was decided by the Auction Officer vide proceedings recorded on 5.8.2005 itself. It was observed by the Auction Officer that the highest price offered was of sixth respondent (Rs. 1.34 crores) and inspite of repeated efforts no bidder offered more amount than Rs. 1.34 crores and accordingly, it was finalized. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 sec 71], M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others [( 1990) 3 SCC 280], Divya Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others ( AIR 2000 SC 2346 ) and N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1995 SC 423 ) contended that the power possessed by the public authorities have to be used in public good. It is their duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair-play in action. The State or its1nstrumentality entering into commercial field must act in consonance with the rule of law. While dealing with tenders, State is entitled to look for the best deal and for that it can refuse to accept even the highest bid. It is their duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair-play in action. The State or its1nstrumentality entering into commercial field must act in consonance with the rule of law. While dealing with tenders, State is entitled to look for the best deal and for that it can refuse to accept even the highest bid. On the other-hand Shri R.N. Singh, learned Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 has contended that while exercising the power of judicial review in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State the Court is primarily concerned as to whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. By way of judicial review it can not examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and the case law cited by the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in the matter. The first allegation of the petitioner that the auction sale was conducted by Auction Officer at different comers of the area of land which was to be sold thereby he was prevented to participate in the auction sale of all the plots stands demolished having regard to the reply and the note sheet (Annexure R-2) of the auction proceedings. It is clear from the reply and the not sheet filed by the respondents that the auction sale of all the plots was conducted only at one place and that too one after another. It is also pertinent to note that the said note sheet bears signature of the petitioner also. The petitioner has not come forward to controvert the contents of the said note sheet in which the entire proceedings of the auction has been recorded. In the circumstances, this contention of the petitioner has no force. As regards his next contention that he offered 5 lakhs more for plot No. E5/5 than the offer of the sixth respondent which was finalized for Rs. 1.34 crores has also got no merit. In view of the proceedings of the auction filed by the respondent the said offer of the petitioner was not before the finalisation of the bid in favour of the sixth respondent for Rs. 1.34 crores. The objection raised by the petitioner that he offered Rs. 1.34 crores has also got no merit. In view of the proceedings of the auction filed by the respondent the said offer of the petitioner was not before the finalisation of the bid in favour of the sixth respondent for Rs. 1.34 crores. The objection raised by the petitioner that he offered Rs. 1.39 cores before finalisation of the bid was rightly rejected by the Auction Officer observing that no such offer was ever made by the petitioner during the course of auction process. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner offered for Rs. 5 lakhs more the auction Officer was bound to accept his offer in the interest of public ex-chequer is also of no merit. It was a public auction in which the petitioner also participated and having finalized the offer of the highest bidder, the Auction Officer was not obliged to consider the petitioner's offer made after acceptance of the highest bid. In view of the aforesaid I find no ground to interfere into the matter. Since the petition is flied by making incorrect statement of facts it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2.000/-.