MANISH KHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is mainly raising grievance against the action of respondent No.3 as a notification dated 28.07.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.07.2020 was published inviting online bids for leasing various plots owned by the respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority (in short "JDA") under different schemes but the Minimum Acceptable Bid Value (Reserved value) was not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(viii) of Madhya Pradesh Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampatiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 (in short, "Rules, 2018"), which is depriving the petitioner and other persons of participation in the auction proceeding as the reserved value of the plots was on a higher side. The said reserved value was determined by adopting illegal method ignoring the mannerism provided for determination of the reserved value under the Rules, 2018. Therefore, the instant petition has been filed for seeking quashment of the impugned notification dated 28.07.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.07.2020.

(2.) The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the JDA is a formation of Statute which is known as Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, exercising power conferred by Section 86 read with Section 58, the State of M.P. notified the Rules, 2018 vide gazette notification dated 01.10.2018 regulating the management and lease of properties owned by various City Development Authorities across the State. As such, the JDA comes within the purview of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(viii) of Rules, 2018 provides mannerism as to under which reserved value or minimum acceptable bid value of a land is calculated. Sub-rule (viii) of Rule 6 reads as under:-

(3.) As per the petitioner, the JDA has no right to develop any mechanism as per their own convenience and such a decision is contrary to the provision of Rule 4 of Rules, 2018. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the JDA has also violated the provisions of Rule 6 of Rules, 2018. Rule 6 deals with the disposal of properties by inviting bids and further a procedure which has to be adopted during the process of inviting bids in sealed cover/online. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner as has been raised in the petition is that the minimum price of the plots put for auction, has been concluded by the JDA by adopting the method which is foreign to the provisions of Rules, 2018 and contrary to the provisions which are prescribed under the Rules, 2018. Since minimum price quoted by the JDA was exorbitantly higher than the actual price, the petitioner and other persons have been deprived of participation in the same and as such the object for allotting the plots to the landless persons or lower/middle class persons is frustrated.