KORADA VINDHYA Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who participated in public auction held on 03-08-2004 by (first respondent) for sale of plots in T. S. No. 442/p of Kothapeta South Ward cattle Shed Layout, Vizianagaram Town, became the highest bidder in respect of plot No. 13 by offering the highest amount of Rs. 1,990/- per square yard. When the petitioner received letter dated 05-07-2004 in R. C. No. 2426/02/f1 informing her that bid amount offered for plot No. 13 is not accepted and hence D. D submitted by her for Rs. 10,000/- with the application is returned therewith, the petitioner filed this petition questioning the said proceedings received by her.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent and also the auction committee-second respondent, the Secretary of the first respondent stated that in the earlier auction that was conducted on 29-02-2004 where Sri k. S. S. Srinivas Rao, who figured as the highest bidder for Rs. 4,560/- per square yard, did not pay the amount in time, that auction was cancelled and the plot was put up for auction again on 08-06-2004, where the petitioner figured as the highest bidder for Rs. 1,990/- per square yard. As the auction committee which reserved a right to delete any plot from auction at any stage either before the commencement of the auction or during the course of the auction or reject the highest bid offered or to postpone the auction without assigning any reasons, and as the petitioner subscribed her signature accepting that condition, she cannot question the rejection of her offer by the committee, on the ground that her bid was less than the bid in the earlier auction. In fact, when the same plot was re-auctioned on 03-08-2004, the father of the petitioner, who participated in the said auction, offered Rs. 3,150/- per square yard but his bid could not be confirmed because of the stay obtained by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the letter received by the petitioner, which is questioned in this petition, does not disclose the reasons for rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner, petitioner is not aware of the reasons for rejection of her bid and as public authorities have a duty to act fairly and honestly, merely because condition No. 18 clothes the respondents with a right to reject any offer without assigning any reasons, respondents cannot reject the offer made by the petitioner without assigning any reasons, and contended that participation of the father of the petitioner in the next auction held by the respondents, and his making a bid higher to that made by the petitioner does not and cannot validate an invalid action of the respondents of rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner.