JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Raghvendra Singh and Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner challenges the rejection of its highest bid for the purchase of assets of the Sugar Mill (M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar), on the ground that the bid was the highest but has been arbitrarily rejected and fresh tenders have been invited. 3. M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Jewar, is facing winding up dissolution proceedings, where Liquidator has been appointed by the Registrar in exercise of power under Section 73 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 4. In pursuance of the tender notice issued by the Liquidator, the petitioner participated in the auction and its bid of Rs. 11.20 Crores was found to be the highest. The tenders were opened on 13.4.2005. 5. After keeping the matter pending for some time, the Government vide letter dated 9.12.2005, required the Managing Director of U.P. Cooperative Sugar Mill Federation Limited, to submit his report as to whether it would be proper to invite fresh tenders, wherein the Federation replied on 6.1.2006, saying that the bid offered by the petitioner was 109% above than the value of the Mill and the highest bid of Rs. 13.50 Crores was received for the first time in the year 1994, but thereafter, tenders were invited about 10 times and every time the bid was much less than to Rs. 11.20 Crores. It was also mentioned that in the above mentioned letter, the sale of the Mill against the said bid of the petitioner appears to be appropriate. However, two options were also suggested—(i) to negotiate with bidders and to make attempt for getting maximum price; (ii) to reserve the bids offered by the bidders and to re-invite the tenders and thereafter negotiate with bidders for the purpose of selling the Sugar Mill in question, and the matter was kept pending. 6. After the reply submitted by the Federation, the Liquidator vide letter dated 15.2.2007 informed the petitioner that the bid offered by it has been cancelled. 7. The petitioner moved a representation on 3.4.2007, requiring the respondent No. 2 to inform the reasons for rejecting its tender. 8. 6. After the reply submitted by the Federation, the Liquidator vide letter dated 15.2.2007 informed the petitioner that the bid offered by it has been cancelled. 7. The petitioner moved a representation on 3.4.2007, requiring the respondent No. 2 to inform the reasons for rejecting its tender. 8. Since no reply was given to the petitioner and in the meantime, a fresh tender notice was issued on 26.7.2008, wherein the last date for submission of the tender forms and the opining of the tenders on the same day was fixed as 26.8.2008. The petitioner has moved another representation on 8.8.2008 and this petition has been filed on 25.8.2008, i.e., on the eve of opening of the tenders. 9. Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, and also from the pleadings in the writ petition itself, submitted that the bid has been cancelled because of inadequacy. He also reiterated that on 2.9.94, the first bid was of Rs. 13.50 Crores, but thereafter, the bids were very low and in some years, i.e. in 1999, 2000 and 2004, no person applied. On 13.5.2005, the petitioner’s bid of Rs. 11.20 Crores was the highest. 10. Submission is that the bid has not been found to be adequate, as in the year 1994, it was Rs. 13.50 Crores and the respondents expected higher price from the petitioner looking to the present value of the property. 11. Sri Raghvendra Singh, in response, submitted that the value of the Mill in the year 1994 was assessed at Rs. 5.37 Crores and now because of unused machinery and wear and tear, the value has decreased and, therefore, the bid of the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected. 12. The question as to whether the bid is adequate or insufficient, is mainly the domain of the appropriate authority and unless the non-approval of the bid is manifestly arbitrary, the highest bidder has no right to challenge such an order who will not get any enforceable right to enter into the contract. It is not only the machines but entire assets including the land whose value has to be assessed for the purpose of auction and, therefore, the consideration on the facts that the appropriate authority decided to go for a fresh auction, it cannot be said that the order is palpably erroneous or arbitrary. It is not only the machines but entire assets including the land whose value has to be assessed for the purpose of auction and, therefore, the consideration on the facts that the appropriate authority decided to go for a fresh auction, it cannot be said that the order is palpably erroneous or arbitrary. It is always the endeavour of the authority, auctioning the property to have the maximum price, which is to be assessed keeping in mind the value of the property, as it is assessed or is to be assessed on the present market value when the auction is to take place. In any case, it is the domain of the appropriate authority to consider the adequacy of the bid. 13. It has also been brought to our notice that the earnest money, which was deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier tender notice has also been refunded. The petitioner has already taken back the refund by getting the cheque cashed and the petitioner has already purchased the tender form for participating in the fresh auction. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find it a fit case for interference by the High Court. 15. The petition is dismissed. ———