S L SACHDEV Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.7.1991 whereby the bids of petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 3, 8 and 9, Local Shopping Centre, Sector B, Pocket 7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, have been rejected by respondent No. 1 i.e. Delhi Development Authority. Further, a prayer is made for issuance of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to issue demand letters in respect of the aforesaid plots to petitioner and that respondent No. 1 be prohibited from allotting the above mentioned plots to anybody else.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the present writ petition are as under:

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has opposed the present petition by filing a counter-affidavit wherein it is contended that under the terms and conditions of the auction, the bid accepted at the time of auction was subject to the confirmation of the competent authority. In the present case, the bid made by the petitioner on 20.06.1991 was not confirmed by the Competent Authority. It is contended that the Vice Chairman of DDA is the Competent Authority. The said Authority considering the relevant facts and circumstances had decided not to grant confirmation in respect of the highest bid of the petitioner. It is stated that due to that reason, respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 16.07.1991 duly intimated the petitioner that his bid had not been confirmed by the Competent Authority. Respondent had made efforts to refund the earnest money vide cheque Nos. 198581, 198582, 198583 dated 01.08.1991 by regd. A.D. post but the same was received back undelivered. It is stated that under the terms of the auction, the Vice Chairman of DDA is the Competent Authority who is authorised to confirm the bid or reject the same. It is submitted that the highest bid made at the time of auction is subject to confirmation of the Competent Authority and in the present case the Competent Authority had refused to confirm the same, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further stated that the amount of earnest money furnished by the petitioner was sent back to him by account payee cheques but the same was returned by the postal authorities vide their report dated 23.08.1991 with the remark "out of India for unknown period. Returned to sender". Thereafter, cheques were sent to petitioner No. 2 through a Junior Engineer of the respondent deputed for the said purpose who reported that the petitioner was out of station and his wife had refused to receive the cheques till the return of the petitioner. Since, the wife of the petitioner Mrs. Aruna Sachdev was one of the co-bidders, as such, refusal by her is an avoidance of receiving the refund of the earnest money. The further stand of respondent No. 1/DDA is that this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2202/1990 in the case of M/s. Cottage Industries Exposition v. DDA has dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the bid by the Competent Authority. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order of this Court dated 18.07.1990 before the Supreme Court (SLP No. 12031/1990) has also been dismissed on 05.11.1990. Respondent No. 1 has stated that plots Nos. 3 and 8 were put to auction only once prior to 20.06.1991 and plot No. 9 was put to auction for the first time on 20.06.1991. It is admitted that no reserve price was announced on 20.06.1991. It is further stated that the highest bid could have been rejected and the same has been stipulated in terms and conditions of auction i.e. Clause 2(iv) to (vi) and the petitioner is presumed to have given the bid on these terms and conditions. It is further contended that as the bid was not accepted by the Competent Authority, no contract between the parties had come into existence. It is contended that writ petition is devoid of merits and same be dismissed.