Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 177 (JK)

Ab. Rehman v. State Of J. &K.

2010-04-06

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2010
1. Petitioner seems to have responded to the auction notice issued by Srinagar Development Authority (S.D.A) where-under sealed bids for the auction/disposal of ground floor shops in the proposed four storeyed commercial complex situated at Doodh Ganga were invited. The said complex at the time of invitation of the bids was raised up to plinth level. 2. In the first phase subject to the booking of 60% shops in the auction, the construction of ground floor shops was to be completed within six to nine working months from the date bids are accepted. The bid amount was to be paid in three installments. The condition no.7 of the terms and conditions would provide that the S.D.A has a right to extend the date of issue of bids or to postpone the implementation of the auction or to cancel the auction notice. The condition no. 10 would provide that the constructions of the shops will he completed provided 60% of the shops are booked. 3. The non-satisfaction of the condition i.e. booking of 60% of the shops constrained the S.D.A to issue fresh auction notice but still the said condition was not satisfied. As a result thereof, the offers of the petitioners were not accepted and the matter was taken up in the Board of Directors of the S.D.A. The Board of Directors took the decision that since for the auction of Doodh Ganga Shopping Complex, response was inadequate, therefore, the offers already received shall be cancelled and the earnest money deposited by the tenderers be refunded. It was also decided that the S.D.A shall construct the ground floor of the complex from its own resources. 4. On 18th of June 1998, petitioner has been, intimated that his offer for shop no. 19 in Shopping Complex-II could not be entertained, so has been requested to collect the earnest money from the office, which prompted the petitioner to file the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has legitimate expectation of getting the shop no. 19 allotted as his bid was found to be highest. Therefore, if the S.D.A would construct the Shopping Complex of its own resources, petitioner has every right to get the shop no. 19 allotted. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has legitimate expectation of getting the shop no. 19 allotted as his bid was found to be highest. Therefore, if the S.D.A would construct the Shopping Complex of its own resources, petitioner has every right to get the shop no. 19 allotted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents in opposition would contend that the petitioner has responded to the auction notice which carried terms and conditions, so it is in the light of its terms and conditions the petitioner participated. The stipulation, as is contained in the terms and conditions, is quite clear. Same is also reflected in the auction notice wherein in no un-certain terms, it has been qualified that the Shopping Complex will be constructed only when they will collect offers for at least 60% shops. The condition no. 10 of the terms and conditions is quite apt to be reproduced here under: - "10. The construction of ground floor will be completed within 6 to 9 working months from the date of issue of Letter of Indent/acceptance of bid provided 60% shops are booked under this advertisement." 7. In view of this stipulation, the S.D.A was disabled from accepting the bids as the booking for 60% shops could not materialize. Therefore, in terms of condition no.7, the cancellation of auction was issued, not before the matter was considered by the Board of Directors. When the offers have not been accepted validly for the reason of non-satisfaction of the stipulation in the auction notice itself, the contract could not be said to be final, which would bind the S.D.A to accept the offers of the petitioners. It is true, by participation in the tendering process the petitioner has expectations, but expectation has to be legitimate. The S.D.A has taken the decision to auction the shops, which was subject to booking of 60% of the shops. But when response was poor, even after re-advertisement of the auction, they had no option but to cancel the same. Petitioner could not be said to have a vested right under such circumstances, neither could be said to have a legitimate expectation. Of course his expectation could be legitimate if 60% of the shops would have been booked. 8. But when response was poor, even after re-advertisement of the auction, they had no option but to cancel the same. Petitioner could not be said to have a vested right under such circumstances, neither could be said to have a legitimate expectation. Of course his expectation could be legitimate if 60% of the shops would have been booked. 8. The Judgment titled Kuldeep Singh v. Government of N.C.T Delhi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2652, as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is quite applicable. In the reported judgment grant of L-52 license in favour of the desirous persons was advertised, but the advertisement contained a stipulation to the effect that the acceptance of the applications by the specified competent authority who may accept or reject any application without assigning any reason. The Licensing Authority shall be under no obligation to grant any license for which application has been made. It has been held that when there is a clear stipulation made in the advertisement, non-satisfaction of the stipulation would not give rise to any legitimate expectation. It shall be quite apt quote para 27 of the same judgment. "27. In view of clear stipulation made in the advertisement, therefore, the Appellants could not have had any legitimate expectation that they would invariably be granted a licence to deal in liquor. A date for grant of licence, however, was put in the case of Surinder Katiyal. The said date has been given evidently having regard to the time frame made in the advertisement. It must have been done under a misconception. Such a clear mistake on the part of the authorities would not clothe them with any legal right. His application was received on 10.12.2004 while acknowledging receipt of the said application, it was stated that the license will be issued on 10.1.2005. The same, however, would not mean that the contents of his application were not required to be verified in the light of the statutory requirements. Furthermore, he withdrew his application so as to enable him to apply for another vend. He filed such an application only on 8.2.2005 which was acknowledged as noticed hereinbefore, by the State in terms of its letter dated 6.5.2005. The said letter dated 6.5.2005 did not contain any promise that the licence would be granted by a particular date. Furthermore, he withdrew his application so as to enable him to apply for another vend. He filed such an application only on 8.2.2005 which was acknowledged as noticed hereinbefore, by the State in terms of its letter dated 6.5.2005. The said letter dated 6.5.2005 did not contain any promise that the licence would be granted by a particular date. Even otherwise, it was impermissible for the Respondents to specify a date on which the licence shall be granted keeping in view the fact that it was required to process a large number of applications. It is, thus, not a case where the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be attracted." 9. Applying the ratio as laid down, the position of the instant case is un-susceptible to the claim of the legitimate expectation because bid of the petitioner has not been accepted obviously for the reason of poor response to the auction notice and when offers for 60% of shops were not received, the respondents could not be forced to accept the offer of the petitioner. So, expectation was dependent upon the satisfaction of the conditions incorporated in the auction notice itself as well as in the terms and conditions governing the same. No indefeasible right had accrued to the petitioner so as to claim allotment of shop no. 19, when the Shopping Complex was not constructed on the basis of bid amount or on the basis of installments of the amounts as were to be received from the successful bidders. The S.D.A, now, is stated to have constructed the shopping complex out of its own resources, so petitioner cannot claim allotment of the shop on the basis of offer which he had made. However, after completion of the Shopping Complex, if the S.D.A auctions the shops, if not already auctioned, same shall be governed by the terms and conditions as they may choose to fix, in that eventuality, petitioner shall also be at liberty to compete, i.e. to offer bid. 10. The petition being without any merit is dismissed along with all connected CMPs. The record of the petition No.318/1998 be delinked for being consigned to records as the same has been dismissed in default on 01.09.2007.