RAVINDRA MOHAN PACHAURI Vs. GAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'G.D.A.'). which is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is a development authority notified under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Act. 1973'). By way of advertisement published sometime in October, 2007 in newspaper 'Hindustan' the G.D.A. invited bids for settlement of various plots by auction sale. Pursuant to said advertisement the petitioner, who is a qualified Doctor, not only having graduation, i.e., M.B.B.S. but also having post-graduation in surgery, i.e., M. S., participated in the auction for the plot mentioned at item No. 6 in the advertisement, which is located at A-Block, Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad and reserved for nursing home. As per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner deposited draft/s for a sum of Rs. 13,00,000 towards earnest money for participating in the auction. On 20th November, 2007 auction was held, wherein the bid of the petitioner for Rs. 11,450 per square metre against the reserved price of Rs. 11,000 per square metre was found highest, therefore, the auction committee provisionally accepted the bid of the petitioner and as per Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of auction sale, directed him to deposit 25% of the total bid amount after deducting the sum already deposited towards earnest money. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs. 20,26,000 more on 20th November, 2007 itself to meet the 25% of the bid amount, in respect of which G.D.A. authorities also issued receipts clearly mentioning that the amount being deposited by the petitioner is towards 25% of the bid amount. As per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of auction sale, remaining 75% amount was to be deposited without interest within two months from the date of allotment letter or in six half yearly instalments with 12% interest. Surprisingly, again on 19th December. 2007 another advertisement has been issued by the G.D.A. in a newspaper 'Amar Ujala' re-advertising the plot in question for auction to be held on 9th January, 2008 fixing the bid money of the petitioner, i.e., Rs. 11,450 per square metre as reserved price.

(3.) According to the petitioner, after coming across such an advertisement he tried to know the reason therefor, but nothing was disclosed to him by the authorities of G.D.A.; the petitioner being fully eligible participated in the auction and his bid haying been found highest one was accepted, pursuant to which he deposited 25% of the bid amount and has also complied with all the terms and conditions of auction sale, therefore, without issuing any show-cause notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing and without calling him to renegotiate for sale of the plot in question, issuance of impugned advertisement for re-auction of the plot in question is result of illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and without any justification. Mr. M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since a concluded contract had come into existence between the parties, it was not open for the G.D.A. to take a unilateral decision for re-auction of the plot in question without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the issuance of fresh advertisement is a deliberate attempt to defeat a contract concluded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that by way of a letter dated 1st January, 2008 he raised protest but no heed was paid to it by the G.D.A. authorities.