ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No.24551 and 24602 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, identical issue is involved in both the writ petitions. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.24551 of 2016.

(2.) In CWP No. 24551 of 2016, the petitioner prays for quashing the undated corrigendum issued by the Estate Officer-1 Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Gurgaon and the e-auction pursuant thereto, being beyond the terms and conditions of E-brochure, Annexure P.1, illegal and arbitrary. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to honour the concluded E-bid of the petitioner in respect of residential Plot No.751, Sector 5, Gurgaon measuring 6 marlas and allot him the said plot after receiving the balance due amount.

(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No. 24551 of 2016 may be noticed. The HUDA announced e-auction of residential plots in Sector 5, Gurgaon on the terms and conditions contained in the e-brochure, Anenxure P.1. The petitioner intending to participate in e-auction for the plot in question got himself registered by making payment of prescribed fee of Rs. 1,20,528.00 and also paid Rs. 1000.00 as fee for participation in e-auction. The payment of auction fee of Rs. 1000.00 was made through net banking. The petitioner being fully qualified participated in the e-auction which commenced on 9 AM and closed at 5 PM on 15.11.2016. He offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,02,26,400.00 against the plot in question. The bid of the petitioner was highest till the closing time when the auction concluded on 15.11.2016. According to para 14 of the brochure, highest bidder was required to remit an amount equivalent to 10% of his quoted bid amount by 5 PM of the date succeeding to final bid closing day by way of generating general purpose challan in earnest money head and deposit that challan to HUDA designated Bank. The petitioner with a view to make the required payment approached the HUDA office at 9.30 AM on 16.11.2016 with General purpose challan for making payment of Rs. 8,18,112.00. The petitioner was shocked to know that the payment was not received. The petitioner sent an email at 11.34 hours on 16.11.2016 requesting the respondents to accept the balance payment. On 16.11.2016 at 17.55 hours, the petitioner received an email from the technical agency deployed by HUDA that bidding process for e-auction of residential plots of Estate Office I Gurgaon dated 15.11.2016 had been extended till 17.11.2016 5 PM extendable upto 6 PM due to technical reasons and various complaints from bidders. The email also stated that remaining 8% EMD amount had to be deposited upto 5 PM on 18.11.2016 as per brochure terms and conditions. The other terms and conditions were same. After having received the email on 16.11.2016, the petitioner visited the website of the respondents to ascertain the reasons for extension of e-auction which had already been concluded at 5 PM on 15.11.2016. The petitioner located an undated corrigendum issued under the signatures of Estate Officer which did not contain any valid reason for invalidating his concluded bids in respect of the plot in question. The corrigendum referred to technical reason which according to the petitioner is wrong because he after having offered his highest bid had sent an email on 15.11.2016 at 5.11 PM to e-auction agency to which the technical work had been outsourced by HUDA. Despite personal visit of the petitioner to the office of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 16.11.2016 at 9.30 AM, he was not confronted with any complaint from any bidder nor copy of any such complaint was provided to him. According to the petitioner, the concluded bidding period was extended by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with an ulterior motive to help their own men. The petitioner along with similarly affected bidders submitted representation dated 16.11.2016, Annexure P.5 to the Administrator, HUDA, Sector 14, Gurgaon with a prayer that their bid should be accepted and they should be allowed to pay the required earnest money amount being the highest bidder. The petitioner having successfully bided for the said plot had not participated in the extended e-auction under the bona fide belief that being the highest bidder in a concluded e-auction, bid of any other person in respect of the said plot will not be allowed. However, it came to the notice of the petitioner that one Mr. Saurabh Gautam who had offered bid of Rs. 98,76,400.00 on 15.11.2016 in respect of the said plot, had bid for Rs. 1,11,76,400.00 on 17.11.2016 in the extended e-auction which made him the highest bidder of the said plot, causing prejudice to the right of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents could not take away his vested right by permitting rebidding on the same plot. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.