ISMAIL Vs. HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, residents of Hubli, of whom 2 and 4 claim to be house wives, while the others businessmen, responded to the public auction notice dated 8 - 9 - 2006, by depositing rs. 5,000/ - each, offering the highest bids on 14 - 9 - 2006, and depositing 25% of the bid amount on 15 - 9 - 2006, for purchase of corner sites, in s. R. No. 131/2, of Mariyana Thimmasagara Taluk, hubli. It is the assertion of the petitioners that on account of the failure on the part of the respondent in not communicating the acceptance of their bids, were unable to deposit the balance of the amount, in terms of the auction notice. According to the petitioners, their offers being far, in excess of the value fixed by the State government were entitled to be declared as successful bidders. It is alleged that the respondent by resolution dated 9 - 11 - 2006, Annexure - F, cancelled the auction held on 14 - 9 - 2006, on the premise, that the sites put up for auction, being valuable, would fetch more than the bids offered by the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition to quash item No. 15 of the Resolution dated 9 - 11 - 2006, Annexure - F, and to direct the respondents to execute the sale deeds, in favour of the petitioners, conveying the corner sites, as set out in the auction notification, by accepting the balance amount.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel submits that disposal of corner sites are governed by the Karnataka Urban Development (Disposal of Comer sites and Commercial Sites)Rules, 1991 and that Rule 3 provides for auctioning of comer sites, while Rule 7 provides for cancellation, to be preceded by assigning reasons. Learned counsel while pointing out to Clause (7) of the Auction Notification, annexure - A, reserving the right of the respondent to annual the auction, by assigning reasons, contends that mere expectation to secure a price higher than the offers made by the petitioners, is a perverse, arbitrary and irrational reason, for cancelling the auction.

(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the pleadings, the question that arises for decision making is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for? before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, it is useful to make reference to the following reported decisions in the matter of auction/tender. In the case of state OF ORISSA AND others vs HARINARAYAN, the rejection of the highest bid in an auction for country liquor shops, questioned as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, when subjected to judicial review, the Apex Court observed thus: