CITY MONTESSORY SCHOOL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition relates to plot no. 90-A/A/754 measuring 2238 Sq. Feet situated at Maha Nagar, Lucknow.

(2.) From the pleadings of the parties and perusal of the record we find that the opposite party no.2, Lucknow Development Authority (in short 'LDA') published an auction notice inviting tenders with regard to sale of plots adjacent to the Maha Nagar School of the petitioner's Society in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' on 13.4.1995. The said plot of land was indicated as item no. 1 of the publication and the date fixed for submission of tender was 25.3.1995. As per the advertisement the plot of land was shown as commercial plot. The petitioner on 23.3.1995 came to know about the said advertisement and deputed an official of the Society to get the bank draft prepared and submit the tender in the office of the Lucknow Development Authority However, the said official when reached the office of the Lucknow Development Authority along with the bank draft on 24.3.1995, he found that the office of the Lucknow Development Authority was closed on account of some local holiday. In the publication inviting tender it was mentioned that the tenders may be obtained one day before up to the evening at 5.00 P.M. from the date of submission of tender form. The petitioner was, thus, under impression that the tender forms would be made available till 24.3.1995 up to 5.00 P.M. But since on the said date, there was local holiday, the tender form could not be obtained on 24.3.1995. The said official then reached the office of Lucknow Development Authority on 25.3.1995 for obtaining the necessary tender form. It was under the orders of the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority that the tender form was made available to the said official who after filling up the said form and completion of all the formalities dropped the same in the office of Lucknow Development Authority before 2.00 P.M. The petitioner had quoted the bid as 8,51,043.15 paisa. When the tenders were opened, it was found that only two tenders were received one from the petitioner and the other from the opposite parties no.4 and 5 who had jointly submitted the bid. There is no dispute that the bid offered by the petitioner was higher than the bid offered by the opposite parties no.4 and 5. After considering the tender forms the same was sent for approval to the Vice Chairman, who accepted the offer of the petitioner on 2.6.1995 and in turn the petitioner was communicated the acceptance of the tender in his favour. Thereafter 15% of the amount which comes to Rs. 1,26,610/- was deposited by the petitioner on 29.8.1995 through bank draft and further a sum of Rs. 5000/- was deposited on 30.8.1995, thus the total of 25% of the amount was deposited. The petitioner then requested the opposite party no.2 to handover the possession of the said plot as the remaining amount was to be deposited in six monthly installments. The petitioner, however, could not deposit the monthly installment in time as a result of which the acceptance of tender was cancelled on 14.6.1995. The petitioner then moved an application for depositing the remaining amount in installments and restoring the acceptance of the tender in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 12.1.1996 the petitioner was allowed to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount in 10 monthly installments. However, the possession of the said land was not given to the petitioner. All of a sudden, the petitioner was informed on 5.7.1996 through a communication by the opposite party no.3 that the State Government has cancelled the acceptance of the tender in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 20.6.1996. The reason shown for cancellation of the tender was that the tender form was not purchased by the petitioner a day before the date of submission of tender form. It was also mentioned in the said communication that the State Government in view of the acceptance extended by the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 for purchase of the said land on the same amount had accepted their tender. Thus the cancellation of tender was made at the level of the State Government on a complaint but it was not mentioned in the aforesaid letter as to who was the complainant. The case of the petitioner is that before cancellation of his tender, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain as to why the tender form could not be purchased one day before. Thus the action of the State Government cancelling the tender of the petitioner was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is also a case of the petitioner that the State Government could have cancelled the tender of the petitioner but it had no jurisdiction to allot the land in favour of opposite parties no.4 and 5. The acceptance of the tender was to be made only by the Vice Chairman of the LDA and not by the State Government. It is not disputed that the amount offered by the opposite parties no.4 and 5 was less than the amount offered by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the petitioner has sought relief for quashing of the communication dated 5.7.1996 and has sought direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.1 and 2 not to execute any sale deed in favour of the opposite parties no.4 and 5 and also not to give possession of the said land in pursuance of the allotment.

(3.) This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the interim order on 18.7.1996. The operative portion of the interim order is as under:-