Ranjit Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7931-2023
Reserved on: 06.12.2023
Pronounced on: 12.03.2024 Ranjit Singh .... Petitioner Vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate. Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent-HSAMB ARUN PALLI, J. The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief: "Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the illegal and arbitrary order/letters dated 11.04.2023 posted through official portal (Annexure P-7) showing the status of the bid rejected which was held on 22.02.2023 wherein the property was auctioned in favor of the petitioner since he was the successful bidder/buyer in the E-Auction without any cogent reason and further contrary to the rules and regulations menat for the bidding issued to
-2- the petitioner whereby the liquidated damges have been imposed upon the petitioner and the respondents be directed to make payment of the running bill no.1 to the petitioner. AND/OR Issue a writ, in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not to proceed further with the cancellation/rejection of the auction wherein the petitioner has been declared successful bidder and has fulfilled all athe terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and there is no mentioning of the cancellation/rejection of the E-Auction after it has been decided in the advertisement (P-1)." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement (P-1), the respondent authorities sought to auction shops situated at Market Committee, Nangal Chaudhary, New Grain Market, District Mahandergarh at Narnaul.
Per the terms of the auction, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (P-2) as earnest money. Whereafter, he participated in the auction and submitted a bid of Rs.12,25,000/-, for plot/shop No.42. And being the highest bidder, he was adjudged H1. Whereafter, per the terms and conditions of auction, the successful bidder, post issuance of the letter of intent, was required to pay the balance consideration by way of installments. He asserts that the petitioner was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, rather than issuing a Letter of Intent, the authorities have rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner. And accordingly, credited the amount deposited by the petitioner in his bank account.
He submits that prior to the institution of this petition, the petitioner had even served the respondent authorities with a representation dated 11.04.2023 (P-8), but to no avail.
-3-
!"#$ %&!
'( )
&*+(", '- ) $%&% Reply on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 has been filed. Wherein, claim of the petitioner is seriously disputed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that highest bid of the petitioner (Rs.12,15,000/-) and the bids of other plots, which were included in the same e-auction, was examined by the Allotment Committee and it was found that all the highest bids of each shops/plots were much lesser than the previous bids, while the shops/plots were of the same size. It is further submitted that due to the huge difference between previous and present bids, the Allotment Committee decided to cancel all the bids, including that of the petitioner. And, there being no concluded contract inter se the parties, the relief claimed for in the petition could not be countenanced.
!
"
#$
%
&
!
% & !
'
(
' &
!
& !
(
-4-
#
!
!
)
( (
!
!
*
%
% !
(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 12.03.2024 deepak/AK Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No