Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1045 (RAJ)

Sita Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-20

INDERJEET SINGH

body2018
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “(i) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the letter dated 02.08.2017 may kindly be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the allotment letter in favour of the petitioner regarding shop No. 100/SP-72 as well as they may also be directed to execute the perpetual lease hold rights in favour of the petitioner by accepting remaining amount. (iii) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, cancellation of the bid of the petitioner and condition No. 7 of the terms and conditions attached with the application dated 27.06.2017 may kindly be declared illegal and unconstitutional. (iv) any other appropriate writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be issued. (v) cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Housing Board (to be referred as Board) issued an advertisement on 18.05.2017 for auction of the residential and commercial premises. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner deposited the required amount for participating in the auction sale scheduled to be held on 23.06.2017 for shop bearing No. 100/SP-72. The petitioner being the sole bidder deposited Rs. 5,30,000/- as required by the respondents according to the terms and condition. The Board vide letter dated 02.08.2017 rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner in view of condition No. 7 of the auction notice on the ground that the rates are not competitive. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Board in passing of the order dated 02.08.2017 is arbitrary and illegal. Counsel further submits that the Board has rejected the bid without assigning any reason and the bid of the petitioner should have been accepted by the Board as the petitioner was the sole bidder for the shop in dispute. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalu Ram Ahuja and Another vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 696 . 4. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalu Ram Ahuja and Another vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 696 . 4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Board has rightly issued the order dated 02.08.2017 by which bid of the petitioner as well as of four other persons for different shops in Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Scheme Jaipur was rejected. Counsel further submits that the Board has consciously taken the impugned decision of rejection as the rates submitted by the persons including the petitioner were not found to be competitive. Counsels further submits that in view of condition No. 7 of the auction notice, the respondent Board was competent to reject the bid submitted by the petitioner. 5. In support of the contention counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Shiv Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and Another passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4758/2013, wherein this court has considered such like condition of the auction notice and held as under:- “In the cases referred by learned counsel for petitioners, no reason was assigned for cancellation and it was not given in the reply the petitioners thus caused interference. The facts of this case are not similar rather respondents have not only given reasons to justify their action but subsequent auction show and justify their action in the public interest. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others vs. Sadhu Ram, (2008) 16 SCC 405 has held that action in such cases cannot be said to be illegal. The action of the competent authority cannot be nullified on the ground that order is non-speaking, if ultimately no mala-fide or unfair practice is found therein. In the instant case, the respondents have justified their action hence judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja (supra) and other judgments referred by the petitioners do not apply. Learned counsel for petitioners have raised another issue to challenge the order in reference to the terms of condition of auction. As per condition, the respondents were required to consider acceptance within a period of 45 days form the date of opening of the bid. Learned counsel for petitioners have raised another issue to challenge the order in reference to the terms of condition of auction. As per condition, the respondents were required to consider acceptance within a period of 45 days form the date of opening of the bid. Learned counsel for petitioners failed to refer any of such condition which provides that confirmation or rejection of the bid should be made within a period of 45 days. In absence of such a condition, the argument for deemed acceptance of bid cannot be accepted. Even otherwise when the terms of auction provides for acceptance of the bid by the competent authority, the question of deemed acceptance does not arise. The other issue is that condition for confirmation of the sale by the competent authority does not exist in the advertisement. While the issue aforesaid was considered by this court, learned counsel Shri Prahlad Sharma submits that he is not pressing the aforesaid ground as there was a condition for confirmation of the sale. The third ground raised by Shri Prahlad Sharma, Advocate is thus not required to be dealt with though for clarification Para 13 of the condition of auction is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- ^^uhykeh esa ÁkIr mPpre cksyh l{ke vf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr feyus ij gh Lohd`r ekuh tk;sxhA ;fn cksyh vLohd`r gks tkrh gS rks jkf'k fcuk C;kt ds ykSVk nh tk;sxhA** There was specific provision for acceptance of the bid and in case of non-acceptance, the amount would be refunded without interest. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed along with stay applications.” 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. This Court deems it appropriate to quote the condition No. 7 of the auction notice as under:- ^^fdlh ,d vFkok leLr fcM ÁLrkoksa dks fcuk dkj.k crk;sa] fujLr djus dk lEiw.kZ vf/kdkj jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ds ikl lqjf{kr gS ,oa bl laca/k esa dksbZ okn@fookn Lohdk;Z ugha gksxkA** 8. 7. This Court deems it appropriate to quote the condition No. 7 of the auction notice as under:- ^^fdlh ,d vFkok leLr fcM ÁLrkoksa dks fcuk dkj.k crk;sa] fujLr djus dk lEiw.kZ vf/kdkj jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ds ikl lqjf{kr gS ,oa bl laca/k esa dksbZ okn@fookn Lohdk;Z ugha gksxkA** 8. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not accepted because the order dated 02.08.2017 was passed by the Board, whereby the bid submit by the petitioner was rejected and while doing so the Board has assigned specific reason that the rates were not found to be competitive, therefore, in my view it was a conscious decision taken by the Board in rejecting the bid submitted by the petitioner. 9. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the present case as in the matter of Kalu Ram Ahuja and Another vs. Delhi Development Authority while rejecting the bid no reason whatsoever was assigned whereas in the present case while taking the impugned decision the Board has assigned specific reason in rejecting the bid. 10. Thus, in view of the above discussion I am not inclined exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason firstly the Board was within its right to reject the bid submitted by the petitioner in view of the condition No. 7 of the auction notice, which must have been taken note of by the said bidder before participating in the auction proceedings, secondly while rejecting the bid submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2017 the Board has given a reason for rejecting the bid that the rates are not found to be competitive. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.