ARUN K SARAF Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA), a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, invited tenders for a plot of land at Vasant Kunj-Jawaharlal Nehru University for the construction of Five Star Hotel. The advertisement-was published by the DDA of the said auction in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Hindu and Anand Bazar Patrika etc. In response to the said advertisements more than 40 forms were sold upto 22.2.1993 which was the last date. Out of these only two forms/sealed tenders were received and only one out of said two tenders was valid as the other tender submitted by another party did not fulfil the requirements of the DDA. The tender was opened on 1.3.1993. The tender furnished by the petitioner was accompanied by a bank drafts/pay orders equivalent to 25% of the tendered amount of Rs. 32.25 Crores. The other tender submitted by one M/s. Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. was not accompanied by 25% of the tendered amount, only a bank draft for Rs. 11 lac was enclosed as earnest money with the statement that the said M/s. Asian Consolidated Industries would make the payment of the earnest money equivalent to 25% of the tendered amount. The tender amount was Rs.53.1 crores. The said M/s.Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd.submitted an application along with tender that they will deposit the balance amount of earnest money together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. by 15.5.1993, but the said M/s. Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. did not make the payment of 25% of the earnest money within the stipulated time. It is an admitted case that the petitioner's tender was vaild.

(2.) According to the petitioners they were orally informed on 11.3.1993 that their bid was accepted by the DDA. However, respondent-DDA denied any such communication. To the surprise of the petitioners, they received a letter dated 15.3.1993 from Deputy Director (CL) Delhi Development Authority informing them that their tender had been rejected by the competent authority. No reason was assigned for the rejection of tender. The petitioners state that they came to know from a newspaper report that the Urban Development Minister had stalled selling of the plot ear-marked for the construction of a Five Star Hotel in Vasant Kunj area and directed that fresh tenders for the sale be invited, and that directive was issued under Section 41(1) of the Delhi Development Authority Act to this effect. The petitioners then made representations to the Minister of Urban Development, Lt. Governor of Delhi and the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority to reconsider the aforesaid decision. According to them the auction has been very well advertised and received adequte publicity. According to the petitioners the stand of the respondent-DDA after the bids were opened in not selling the plot in question is illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners have also challenged the decision of the Delhi Development Authority to go for reauction which should have received international publicity as totally unjust, unfair and arbitrary and was to out the peitioners. They also argued that as the petitioners were the highest bidder, fully qualified in all respects and there was a legitimate expectation that they would be awarded the tender. According to them the tender had been rejected taking into account irrelevant consideration and extraneous consideration and ignoring relevant considerations.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the letter dated 15.3.1993 the petitioners challenged the letter and filed the present petition for issuance of a writ or appropriate direction to be issued to the respondent to quash the said letter.