HARPAL SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five writ petitions raise a common issue - Is the action of the Chief Administrator in refusing to accept the bid arbitrary? Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in CWP No.14199 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed.The Haryana Urban Development Authority published a notice indicating its intention to sell certain commercial plots by open auction. The auction was fixed for May 30,2000. A reserve price of Rs. 7.55 lacs had been fixed for plot No.42, Sector 21-C, Faridabad. The petitioners participated in the auction. They gave the bid of Rs. 16.40 lacs. 10% of the amount viz. 1.64 lacs were deposited at the spot. When the petitioners did not get a letter of allotment, they served a legal notice on the respondents on July 31, 2000. This was followed by a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad. However, the suit was withdrawn. Vide letter dated August 24,2000, the petitioners were informed that their bid had not been accepted by the competent authority. A copy of this communication has been produced as Annexure- P.7 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the action of the authority is arbitrary and unfair. There was no material on the basis of which the authority could have come to the conclusion that the offer made by the petitioners should be rejected. Consequently, the petitioners pray that the impugned order/action be quashed.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that about 20 sites had been auctioned. Various offers were received. These offers were "much below the current market price.....". Thus, the auction "with regard to all the 20 double storeyed service shops in Sector 20-C Faridabad" was cancelled. It has been further averred that" 10% amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded to him on 14-8-2000 through cheque but the same was received back by the respondent as undelivered with the remarks of the postal authority that the petitioner does not reside at the given address." The respondents have further pointed out that "3 sites were re-auctioned after a period of two months and on re-auction, the sites fetched a price ranging between Rs. 27 to 28 lacs whereas in the earlier auction, they had given a bid of only 16 lacs approximately". On these premises, the respondents maintain that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard.