ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of the respondents No.1 and 2/Housing Board dated 24.12.2011 whereby they have informed the petitioner that his bids for Plots No.696-B and 696-C have not been accepted. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner submitted offers pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents/Housing Board dated 16.9.2011 whereby the respondents/Board had put up for auction Plots No.696-B, 696-C, 696-D (comer), 696-E, 696-F (comer). The offers were opened on 7.10.2011 and the petitioner was found to be the sole bidder for Plots No.696-B and 696-C. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had offered Rs.72,40,000/- for Plot No.696-B against the offset price of Rs.71,43,000/- and Rs.74,20,000/ for Plot No.696-C against the offset price of Rs.71,97,000/-. The petitioner, by the impugned communication dated 24.12.2011 was informed that his offers had been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his offers and the subsequent advertisement dated 24.12.2011 Annexure P-4 putting up the said two plots for re-auction has filed the present petition before this Court. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the sole highest bidder for Plots No.696-B and 696-C and that his offer was above the offset price and in such circumstances, the Board was bound to accept the offers of the petitioner and allot the same to him and therefore the rejection is contrary to law. It is submitted that the respondents/Board is a non-profit organization which is involved in providing quality housing accommodation at a reasonable price and also in undertaking infrastructure developments and matters connected therewith and cannot be permitted to act as an ordinary businessman. It is stated that in the circumstances the impugned orders be quashed. 4. In response, the respondents have filed a return and stated that the respondents/authorities on finding that there was only a single offer in respect of the Plots No.696-B and 696-C, and that the offers received were marginally above the offset price and were much less in comparison to the offers received in respect of other plots, decided to reject the offers and go in for re-auction. The respondents in para 3 of the return have given a chart indicating the offset price and the highest offers received in respect of the plots that had been put up for auction. The respondents/Board in the return have also stated that the respondents/authorities have subsequently put up the aforesaid Plots No.696-B and 696-C for re-auction by issuing advertisement dated 24.12.2011, in response to which they have received 4 and 3 offers respectively in respect of the aforesaid plots and have stated that as against the previous highest bid of Rs.72,40,000/- in respect of Plot No.696-B, they have now received an offer of Rs.1,22,60,000/- and as against the previous highest offer of Rs.74,20,000/ in respect of Plot No.696-C they have now received an offer of Rs.1,32,60,000/- and in such circumstances, the impugned decision is justified and in accordance with law. 5. The respondents have also objected to the filing of the present petition on the ground that merely because the petitioner was the sole bidder in the previous auction or that he was the highest bidder in the previous auction he does not acquire any right to allotment of the plots, as the discretion to accept or not to accept the offers vests in the competent authority under clause 26 of the terms and conditions pursuant to which the advertisement was issued, a copy of which has been filed along with the return as Annexure R-2. 6. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has pointed out that under clause 27 of the terms and conditions, the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board in case of any dispute but the petitioner has not done so and in such circumstances the petition be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 has reiterated the submissions of the respondent-Board and has also categorically denied the submission of the petitioner regarding favoritism and has pointed out that the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner are vague and have not been substantiated by placing anything on record and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and stated that the respondents had auctioned five plots against which 48 forms were sold. It is stated that Doctor Sunil Malik and his wife Mrs. 8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and stated that the respondents had auctioned five plots against which 48 forms were sold. It is stated that Doctor Sunil Malik and his wife Mrs. Monica Malik who have subsequently been added as respondents No.3 and 4 in the present petition, had purchased five forms in the first auction but did not choose to submit any offer in respect of the plots No.696-B and 696-C. It is stated that as per information brought on record by the respondents-Board it is clear that the respondents No.3 and 4 are the highest bidders in the subsequent auction proceedings conducted by the respondent-Board and on the aforesaid basis it is submitted that the second auction proceedings were infact taken up by the Board only to facilitate and accommodate the respondents No.3 and 4 and to enable them to purchase the plots No.696-B and 696-C which even otherwise is not permissible in law as a person is only entitled to purchase one plot from the Housing Board. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 10. From a perusal of the documents on record it is clear that the respondents-authorities undertook the auction of five plots, in response to which the petitioner submitted his bids which were marginally above the offset price in respect of Plots No.696-B and 696-C. It is clear that the petitioner was the only applicant and bidder for the aforesaid plots in the first auction proceedings. It is further clear from a perusal of Annexure R-1 filed by the respondents-Board along with return that the respondents-authorities on comparing the bids and examining the matter found that they had received single offers in respect of plots No.696-B and 696-C which were marginally above the offset price whereas the offers received by them in respect of other plots were more than double the offset price as several persons had applied for the same and, therefore, they decided to reject the offers of the petitioner in exercise of powers vested in the authorities under clause 26 of the terms and conditions which have been filed along with the return as Annexure R-2, and have undertaken subsequent auction proceedings. 11. 11. The facts brought on record indicate that the respondent-Board has received offers of nearly double the amount that they had received in the previous auction in respect of the two plots in question. It is also stated that no final decision to either accept or reject the offers received pursuant to the re-auction have been taken in view of the interim order passed by this Court. 12. Quite apart from the above, it is clear from a perusal of the petition that the petitioner has not made any specific or categorical averments in the present petition while assailing the decision of the respondents-authorities for re-auction to the effect that the decision was motivated by any mala fide or that it was taken with a specific object of benefitting the respondents No.3 and 4. 13. It is settled law that in the absence of any specific and clear allegation of mala fide against any particular officer or individual who have not been impleaded as respondents such vague and general allegations of mala fide or favoritism cannot be looked into. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and another v. G.S. Investments and another [ (2007)1 SCC 477 ], while dealing with a similar situation in respect of auction conducted by the Rajasthan Housing Board has held that merely because a person is the highest bidder in an auction he does not acquire any right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chairman of the Housing Board or competent authority, as the case may be, has passed an order accepting the offer. It has further been held that merely because a person is the highest bidder, he does not acquire any vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the auction proceedings can always be cancelled. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Laxmikant v. Satyawan [(1996)6 SCC 208], wherein several previous decisions of the Supreme Court had been considered and has gone on to state that the aforesaid legal position is settled. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Laxmikant v. Satyawan [(1996)6 SCC 208], wherein several previous decisions of the Supreme Court had been considered and has gone on to state that the aforesaid legal position is settled. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been affirmed and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others v. Sadhu Ram [(2008)16 SCC 405], wherein it has also been reiterated that a decision to cancel the auction proceedings cannot be assailed, if it is not shown to be mala fide, unfair or arbitrary. The Supreme Court in the case of Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and another [ (2009)6 SCC 171 ], has also held that the authorities concerned have the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exists good and sufficient reason such as the highest bid does not represent the market price, in case it is shown that the decision to do so is free from arbitrariness or favoritism. 15. From a perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that merely because the petitioner was the sole bidder in respect of plots No.696-B and 696-C he did not acquire any vested right for allotment of the said plots in the absence of any acceptance of his offer in writing by the competent authority and, therefore, a direction to the respondents to accept the bid of the petitioner as sought for by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be issued being misconceived and being impermissible in law. Moreso, as I am of the considered opinion that the respondents-authorities have placed sufficient material on record to justify the reasons for taking a decision to reject the single offer of the petitioner and put up the plots for re-auction whereas the petitioner has failed to demonstrate or establish that the said decision suffers from any mala fide, arbitrariness or favoritism. In fact the offers received by the respondent-Board in the subsequent auction proceedings justify their decision. 16. In fact the offers received by the respondent-Board in the subsequent auction proceedings justify their decision. 16. In view of the aforesaid decision, I find no reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents-authorities dated 24.12.2011 rejecting the petitioner’s offer for plots No.696-B and 696-C. The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. 17. It is, however, made clear that as the respondents-authorities have not yet finalized the second auction proceedings and as the validity of the result thereof is not the subject-matter of the present petition, this Court has not made any comments or expressed any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the same. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.