Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondents, waives service of notice of Rule, on behalf of the respondents. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided. 2. By filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, or direction, to quash and set aside the communication dated 25.01.2011, issued by the respondent-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), and further to direct the said Corporation, to allot Plot No.G-1602, of Lodhika GIDC Estate, Rajkot, to the petitioner, being the highest bidder in the auction conducted for the same. 3. The relevant facts are that, the petitioner is a Company, having an Industrial Unit in Plot No.G-1601, of Lodhika GIDC Industrial Estate, Rajkot. The adjoining Plot No.G-1602, was put-up for auction by the respondent-Corporation. A public advertisement was issued for this purpose on 28.10.2010, calling for bids from interested parties. Bids were opened on 18.11.2010. The petitioner’s bid was for Rs. 4,684/- per sq. meter, which comes to an amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, for Plot No.C-1602. The bid of the petitioner was found to be the highest. However, the said plot was not allotted to the petitioner, as the respondent-Corporation had reserved it for the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (“GETCO” for short) which had made a request for allotment of this plot. By letter dated 03.05.2011, the Executive Engineer, GETCO, informed the General Manager of the respondent-Corporation that instead of Plot No.C-1602, GETCO would now prefer that Plots Nos.C-1917 and C-1918 be allotted to it, as they are more suitable, having three sides open, which is convenient for incoming 66KV lines, and 11KV outgoing feeders. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the fact that the GETCO has relinquished its demand for Plot No.C-1602 and has already been allotted Plot Nos. C-1917 and C-1918, the plot in question for which the petitioner is the highest bidder, has still not been allotted to it. It is in the above background that the petition has been filed. 4. C-1917 and C-1918, the plot in question for which the petitioner is the highest bidder, has still not been allotted to it. It is in the above background that the petition has been filed. 4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is not denied that the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction that took place for Plot No. C-1602. No material to the contrary has been placed on record. 5. It is not disputed that GETCO has now been allotted Plot Nos. C-1917 and C-1918, and there is no claim on Plot No. C-1602. However, in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, it is mentioned that the bid of the petitioner is not the highest, which aspect has not been stated in the affidavit-in-reply. A stand has been taken in Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit that merely because the petitioner is the highest bidder for Plot No. C-1602, he does not have a right, and the Corporation may consider re-auctioning in the plot. 6. Mr. K.V. Shelat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the highest bidder in the auction that was specifically conducted for Plot No. C-1602, and this fact is supported by the list of bidders prepared by the respondent-Corporation itself, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 1. The bid of the petitioner is for Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, whereas the bid offered by the next bidder is Rs. 1,53,00,000/- which amount is lower than that offered by the petitioner. It is contended that it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-Corporation to take a contrary stand in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, especially when there is no material on record in support of the same. 7. It is further submitted that, earlier, GETCO had requested to be allotted Plot No. C-1602, but now it has relinquished its claim, and other plots have been allotted to GETCO. There is no valid reason for not allotting Plot No. C-1602 to the petitioner, which is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of the bid offered by it within two weeks from today as the auction that has taken place for the said plot has not been cancelled. 8. Mr. There is no valid reason for not allotting Plot No. C-1602 to the petitioner, which is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of the bid offered by it within two weeks from today as the auction that has taken place for the said plot has not been cancelled. 8. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, has submitted that in the event that the plot is re-auctioned, it is open to the petitioner to participate in the re-auction. By placing the highest bid, the petitioner cannot lay claim to allotment of the plot in question, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, and the contents of the affidavit-in-reply and other documents on record. 10. It is stated in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, that the petitioner is not the highest bidder for Plot No. C-1602. However, a perusal of the material on record, especially the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-Corporation, belies this stand. It is categorically mentioned in Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit that: “5. Under the circumstances, the auction which has been cancelled and when the petitioner is already intimated, there is no question of now reviving the past auction, which has been canelled because, once the auction takes place and once it is cancelled, no claimant can have a right of auction also is subject to the final confirmation by the Head Office. Under the circumstances, merely because the plot for which he was a highest offerer for which auction was cancelled and when it is decided to have re-auction, then, no participant in the auction can ever have a vested right therein and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right and when decision is already taken to re-auction the very property and when by letter Annexure-R3 the petitioner is permitted to participate in the re-auction, then in that case, he had no right to file the present petition.” (emphasis supplied) 11. From the above averments, it does appear that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the plot in the auction. Though it is averred that the auction has been cancelled, no material has been produced by the respondent-Corporation, in support of this averment. From the above averments, it does appear that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the plot in the auction. Though it is averred that the auction has been cancelled, no material has been produced by the respondent-Corporation, in support of this averment. No order regarding cancellation of the auction is on record, and the learned advocate for the respondents has not been able to answer satisfactorily the queries of this Court regarding the date on which the auction has been cancelled. There is no material on record to show that the auction has been cancelled. A letter dated 27.07.2011 is on record, which has been sent by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the auction that may take place in the future. From the same, it appears that till date, the auction in which the petitioner has participated, has not been cancelled or set aside, and no fresh advertisement has been issued by the respondent-Corporation, inviting bids for a fresh auction. 12. It may be noted that the auction was specifically conducted for Plot No. C-1602. No valid reason for not allotting the plot to the petitioner, has been advanced by the respondent-Corporation. As already stated, there is no material on record to indicate that the said auction has been cancelled and a fresh auction is to take place. Moreover, no defect, irregularity or breach by the petitioner has been pointed out, necessitating the holding of a fresh auction. 13. The list of bidders in the auction, appended at Annexure-B to the petition, has been prepared by the General Manager of the respondent-Corporation. It indicates the names of the bidders who participated in the auction, on 18.11.2010. It also states the amounts of the bids offered by the respective participants. It is clear from perusal of the same, that out of four participants, the petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- which is the highest. The next participant offered a bid of Rs. 1,53,00,000/-. The other two participants offered Rs. 81,58,000/- and Rs. 82,00,000/- respectively. The veracity of this document has not been denied by the respondent-Corporation. In light of this, the reasons contained in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, that the petitioner is not the highest bidder, are not substantiated by any material on record and do not appear to reflect the correct factual position. 14. 81,58,000/- and Rs. 82,00,000/- respectively. The veracity of this document has not been denied by the respondent-Corporation. In light of this, the reasons contained in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, that the petitioner is not the highest bidder, are not substantiated by any material on record and do not appear to reflect the correct factual position. 14. As the petitioner is the highest bidder, and no material has been produced to the contrary, or to show that the auction in which it has participated has been cancelled, or that the process of re-auctioning Plot No. C-1602 has taken place, the stand of the respondent-Corporation does not appear to be fair, just or proper. No valid reason exits on record for denying allotment of Plot No. C-1602 to the petitioner, which is the highest bidder for the same. 15. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider allotment of Plot No. C-1602 to the petitioner, in accordance with law, Rules and Regulations that may be applicable, in this regard. The decision be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. 16. The petition is partly-allowed, to the above extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. P P P P P