PUNITHA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The essential grievance of the Petitioner is as to non- acceptance of his highest bid in the public auction. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the auction tender creates a legitimate expectations by its terms that the highest bid would be accepted subject to all just exceptions and that no exceptions are pointed out by the other side and therefore, there should be a direction to accept the bid of his client.

(2.) After service of notice, 1st Respondent has entered appearance through the learned AGA and the 2nd Respondent through its Sr. Panel Counsel; other Respondents though served have chosen to remain unrepresented. Counsel for the Respondents vehemently oppose the Petition contending that a bid is just an offer and unless there is a legal duty to accept the same, the Writ for the issuance of Mandamus does not lie, matter essentially falling within the domain of Law of Contract. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 vehemently points out that the bid amount is much lower than the what was it in the previous auction. Regard being had to growth in population, etc., it ought to have been much more. Having so contended, learned Sr. Panel Counsel now graciously agrees to instruct his client to look into the grievance of the Petitioner if an appropriate representation is made in that regard, keeping in view the arguable defect in the stand of the respondents in not issuing prior notice before canceling the tender.

(3.) In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation within ten days inter alia offering reasonable bid amount a bit higher than in the previous auction. The 2nd Respondent shall favorably consider the same in accordance with law so that the time is not lost in the avoidable legal battle.