Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 543 (JK)

Bhej Kumar Raina v. State of J&K

2021-10-12

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the communication dated 09.01.2014 issued by the Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu to the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Sundarbani, whereby he has requested to re-auction Shop No. 18 on the ground that while opening the bids it has been found that there is no healthy competition and, therefore, bids have not been accepted. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid communication and has challenged the same, inter alia, on the ground that he being the highest bidder for Shop No. 18, which was put to re-auction, had acquired a right to have the said shop allotted in his favour for the bid amount of Rs. 4,02,000/-. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that in the earlier round of auction, the respondents had received only a single bid for Shop No. 18 which was to the tune of Rs. 11,25,021/-. This bid was submitted by one, Sh. Lok Nath S/o Sh. Hira Nand R/o Sundarbani. 4. The respondents, however, did not accept the aforesaid bid on the ground that there was no healthy competition. The shop was put to re-auction in which the petitioner and two others participated. The petitioner’s bid, which was to the tune of Rs. 4,02,000/- was highest amongst the three bidders, but the same too could not be accepted by the competent authority because of poor competition. The specific stand of the respondents is that since the earlier bid of more than Rs. 11 lakhs submitted by Sh. Lok Nath in the first round of auction was not accepted due to the reason that there was a single bid and, therefore, no healthy competition, as such, there was no reason or justification to accept the bid of Rs. 4,02,000/- which was far less than the bid of Sh. Lok Nath which stood rejected in the first round of auction. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that mere participation of the petitioner in the auction does not confer upon him any right to have Shop No. 18 allotted to him only on the ground that in the auction process he has been found to be highest bidder. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that mere participation of the petitioner in the auction does not confer upon him any right to have Shop No. 18 allotted to him only on the ground that in the auction process he has been found to be highest bidder. The legal position in this regard is well settled that the tendering authority is well within its power to reject even the highest bid provided its action of rejection of such bid is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner are just, fair and rational, therefore, the action of the respondents, rejecting the bid of the petitioner despite the same being highest does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents are justified in rejecting the bid of the petitioner for lack of healthy competition, particularly, when in the earlier round of auction for the same shop. They had rejected the bid of Rs. 11,25,021/- given by one Sh. Lok Nath on account of unhealthy competition and a single bid participation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondents, however, are directed to release the amount of security i.e. Rs. 1 lakh in favour of the petitioner, if not already released, along with interest that might having been earned on the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon the respondents.