AJAY KUMAR GOEL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule D.B, According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the highest bidder of the shop in question and 25 per cent of the money was accepted from the petitioner on 19th June, 1990 and thereafter, the petitioner received a communication for the return of the cheque although the communication stated that tile petitioner has been declared successful in the auction held on 19th June, 1990. The respondent's case is that the petitioner's highest bid was not accepted by the Vice-Chairman. Conditions of Auction clearly lay down that the bid accepted by the Officer conducting the auction is subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority, The respondent has produced the document Ext. R-2, in which there is mention of 18 auctions and it was proposed that the auction at serial nos. 1, 5 and 18 may not be accepted as the bid was only marginally higher than the reserve price. This proposal is marked "A" approved by the Vice-Chairman which appears to be in his own hand. The endorsement is "As proposed "A" approved". This endorsement is signed by the Vice Chairman It would appear from the annexure that the Vice-Chairman has not accepted the highest bid. As the auction was subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority, so it can be said that the petitioner's highest bid was not accepted by the Competent Authority. It is true that in the communication sent to the petitioner, the word 'not' in between the words 'have' and 'been' is missing. This communication is dated 10th October, 1990 by which the relevant cheque for a sum of Rs, 32,000.00 dated 3.9.90 was returned to the petitioner. The word 'not' appears to have been inserted in between the two words. The communication is not very material in face of the document R-2. The proforma of communication relates to non-acceptance of bids because cheques have to be returned but in the form, it appeared that the word 'not' was not typed. Thus, the communication in the circumstances of the case is not very material, more particularly, in the face of the document R-2.

(2.) In the circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him for directing the respondent to issue letter of acceptance to the petitioner in respect of his highest bid.

(3.) In the result, this petition is devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.