Neelam Kumari v. Chief Administrator, Hsvp, Panchkula And ANR.
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108+116
Date of Decision:02.06.2022 Neelam Kumari ...... Petitioner
Versus
Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula & another ......... Respondents Karan Kumar Sharma ...... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula & another ......... Respondents *****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA *****
!""
##$
% & ' ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
-2Vide these petitions, the essential question is as to whether the petitioners in each, being the highest bidders in the respective auctions concerned, for the plots in question, can be denied allotment of the plots on the ground that the bids did not match the price reserved by the respondents even though the said price was not disclosed at the time that the bid was invited or prior to that, in the advertisement itself.
Mr. Chuhan, learned counsel for the respondent HSVP, submits that as per the policy dated 16.06.2020, the reserved price is never disclosed for reasons of confidentiality and to ensure that there is no collusion at any level between the prospective bidders and any officials etc. of the respondent authority itself, or any other persons.
It is also not the case of the petitioners either that a counter offer was not made by the respondents to the petitioners, to match the reserved price, after which the plots in question would be allotted to them. ( %" for the petitioners submit that the counter offers having been made well beyond seven days as are stipulated in the policy for making such counter offers, and in the case of CWP-7091 of 2022 the offer having been made about two months thereafter, it cannot be said to be a valid offer and consequently the bids of the petitioners deserve to be accepted. We do not find ourselves agreement with that contention, for the reason that, firstly, it is not the case of the petitioners herein that any other person has been allotted the plots in question in the meanwhile or that any other person had been made an offer prior to the counter offer made to the petitioners; and
-3further, the issue has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in CWP19447 of 2021 (titled as Dr. Sarika Gautam and others v. HSVP and others, decided on 27.09.2021), wherein in that context, it was held as follows:- )
"
%*" + ,%
% %*"
% %*" % "% *" %*"
-
%*" % "
. %* "+ "
% / 0 % "+ *"
1 & 2
%+
3
+ 2
%
%"
% %
,%
2
+
+ %"
% "+ 3
*1 %
"
% 2 2 %"
2
% "+ *1 % %
"
+ 2
%+ 3
"
"
% /
2 2
+ %"
2 3 %
+
"% "2
"
%*" +
%2 "+
0 % &"
%"
% + %*" 4
* % *
% "
%"
"+
*
" "
% +
""2
%5
%
*% %
-4-
+ 1 "+ %
+ " %"
%*2 *" 2 %"
"" 3 %
+
*
% %*2
" ,% * %
+ %*,%
% %
"+ %
"" %2
*1
% +
"
*
- 6 7 /8///
9:
"
" * 3
%
;
3 < % 2
""
% "
+2 6"+ 2 2
+: " ,% %"
""
6
:
""
2
*
%
%"
##$
"% % + 2%
%2 "%
"
2 2 6 * 7 =$
9:
<
" *
""
%
* "
%+ 5
-5- "+ *1
""+
>
* +
" "
"
(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE
!"
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes