Arun Bansal v. State Of Haryana And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3835-2024 Date of decision:
20.02.2024 Arun Bansal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate, and Mr. Agam Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (respondent No.2), invited applications for allotment of commercial sites (Booth/SCO/Shop) by way of e-auction. Pursuant whereto, the petitioner applied for allotment of SCO-TS-10-PKT-A (triple storey), measuring 108 square meters, in Sector 2A, Phase-II, IGC Saha, District Ambala. And in terms of the auction conditions, also deposited Rs.1,30,140/- on 21.11.2023, as earnest money. It is submitted, for against the reserve price of Rs.24,100/- per square meter, petitioner submitted the bid @ Rs.47,100/- per square meter, he was adjudged H1. And, for the petitioner was always ready/willing to abide by the terms of the auction and remit the balance consideration, he was sanguine that the letter of intent would soon be issued in his favour, followed by a letter of allotment. However, vide communication dated 09.01.2024 (P-1), petitioner was informed that his bid had since been rejected. He asserts
that to date, neither any reason has been assigned to the petitioner, as to on what grounds, his bid was rejected, nor any formal order has been passed, in this regard. So much so, vide a fresh advertisement (P-12), the site in question is again sought to be auctioned, which is slated for 23.02.2024. Thus, it is urged that in the given circumstances, action of the respondent-Corporation is apparently unfair and arbitrary. Further,
! " # $% Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, along with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, and Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate, for the respondent-Corporation, is present in Court. At the outset, he submits that as the competent authority is already in seisin of the concerns/grievances of the petitioner, it would be expedient if this petition is disposed of, at this stage, to enable the authorities to consider and pass necessary orders on his representations/emails (ibid), in accordance with law. Further, he submits that before any such orders are passed, the petitioner shall also be afforded a hearing. However, he fairly submits that till any formal orders, as indicated above, are passed, the site in question would not be auctioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is in agreement with the course suggested by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and submits that this petition be disposed of, in terms of the statement made by him. However, it is urged that the authorities be directed to do the needful within a specified time.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today.
The petition is accordingly disposed of, in terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties. This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall look into the matter in the right earnest. And the appropriate orders shall be passed within the time indicated by the learned counsel for the Corporation. Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute any expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated above, the competent authority shall examine the concerns/grievances of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 20.02.2024 Ak Sharma & $ '
(
& !
(
)