Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. vs Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 November 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 13089 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 925 : 2024 INSC 904

Acts & Sections

Constitution

Issue for consideration

Appellant issued an advertisement inviting bids for leasing out land. Respondent’s bid was found to be the highest. The Tender Committee while finalizing the bids noticed that a property tax demand was outstanding in respect of the land in question, which was not taken into account while fixing the base price and decided not to accept any of the bids. Respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition, inter alia, challenging resolution rejecting the bid and the issuance of fresh NIT. Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief. In writ appeal, Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and held that in case the respondent is willing to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per square meter, the land in question should be allotted to the respondent No.1. Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in allowing the writ appeal and directing allotment of land to the Respondent No.1.

Headnote

Tender Process – Extent of Judicial Review:

Held: Merely by offering highest bid, the respondent No.1 did not acquire any vested right for the execution of the contract in its favour – This Court in the case of CWE-SOMA Consortium has held that while exercising power of judicial review, the Court does not sit as an appellate Court over the decision of the government – The Division Bench should not have interfered in the matter and could not have gone to the extent of fixing the base price/modifying the offer made by respondent especially when the respondent No.1 did not even participate in the fresh NIT – High Court has virtually passed an order sitting in appeal over the decision of the government in absence of any mala fide exercise of power by the Petitioner, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly set aside. [Paras 12, 13, 15]

Right of Bidder in Tender Process:

Held: In the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, no relief could have been granted in favour of respondent No.1 as there was no concluded contract and the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee to generate more revenues could not have been interfered with by the High Court – The bidder has no right in the matter of bid except of fair treatment and cannot insist for further negotiation. [Paras 13, 14]

Cancellation of auction – Powers of Auctioning Authority: Held: While we agree with the principle that the auctioning authority must adhere to the rule of law, the facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from Eva Agro – The Appellants were well within their rights to cancel the auction – Appellant is directed to issue a fresh NIT for disposal of the land in question enabling it to generate more revenues in respect of the land in question. [Paras 15, 16]

Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This present petition is arising out of order dated 08.02.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 5/2022, titled as, “Shri Humad Jain Samaj Trust Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.”, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order dated 17.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26040/2021. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA), hereinafter referred to as “IDA” issued an advertisement inviting bids for le

View Subscription Plans →