VINOD CHADHA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought quashing of letter (annexure P-3) dated 13.1.1992 rejecting petitioner's highest bid for shop No.148,Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi.

(2.) Respondent invited prospective buyers in the auction of 16 shops at Rajendra Place, New Delhi located on plots 4 & 5. Date of auction was fixed as 14.8.1991. In the auction only three highest bids were accepted by the Officer conducting the auction with respect to shop Nos. 128, 144 and 148. There were no bids received for the remaining 13 shops. Petitioner being the highest bidder for shop No.148 at Rs.2,42,000.00 , whose bid was provisionally accepted by the Officer conducting the auction, was asked to deposit 25% of the bid money, as per the terms and conditions of the auction, which the petitioner deposited. It is the petitioner's case that he visited the office of the respondent on 16.8.1991 and met the concerned official but was not issued any demand letter for the balance bid money. Repeated visits thereafter resulted no fruits. Ultimately he was surprised to receive a letter dated 13.1.1992 from the respondent intimating that his highest bid had not been accepted by the Vice Chairman, DDA, therefore, the amount of earnest money deposited by the petitioner was being refunded in the form of cheque for a sum of Rs.61,000.00 dated 30.12.1991. The petitioner has made a grievance in the writ petition that the shop adjacent to the shops for which highest bid had been offered by the petitioner were also put to auction on the same date in the same auction hall and that the petitioner was given to understand that all bids had been accepted by the respondents. But in the case of petitioner alone, his highest bid, which was above the reserve price had not been accepted. It was the grievance made by the petitioner that neither he was assigned any reason for the basis of Vice Chairman to take a decision in rejecting the bid, nor the action of the respondent in rejecting the highest bid is in consonance with law. The same being arbitrary is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) An application for interim relief was also filed along with the writ petition. Notice to show cause was issued on 27.5.1992 and on 15.6.1992 re- auction of the shop, which was to take on 16.6.1992 was stayed on the petitioner's request. After respondent filed its reply justifying its action in rejecting the bid on the ground that reserve price for shop No.148 was fixed at Rs.2,34,000.00 , which was substantially low as compared to the original reserve price of the shop at the time when it was first put to auction. The same was reduced specifically for the purpose of auction, which was to take place on 14.8.1991. Though the petitioner was the highest bidder at Rs.2,42,000.00 but his bid was rejected by the Vice Chairman, after it was noticed by him that the same was far below the original reserve price of the shop, as on the day when the shop became available for being auctioned. It is also stated that all bids with respect to the auction, which took place on 14.8.1991 were rejected. Reasons for rejecting the bids were duly recorded in the record of the DDA but the same were not communicated. There was also no requirement with the competent authority to assign the reasons of rejection to the petitioner since the terms and conditions of the auction very clearly pointed out that the acceptance of the highest bid by the officer conducting the auction was subject to confirmation of the bid by the competent authority.