Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari or mandamus seeking to cancel cancellation mail dated 6-11-2023 regarding auction of a plot in Gurugram wherein, the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder, or for directions to issue letter of intent for allotment of subject, to direct a stay, etc., Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal, JJ. disposed of the petition requiring competent authority to assign reasons in support of such cancellation.
The petitioner participated in an e-auction conducted by Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (‘HSVP’) on 31-10-2023 for sale of a plot measuring 2284 sq. mtr., situated in Section 42, Gurugram. The reserve price was Rs 39,71,78,000, and the petitioner submitted a bid of Rs 49,46,03,000. The petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder and the status of plot booking in the bid history was reflected as ‘booked’. According to petitioner, before participating in the said auction, they had deposited 5% of the reserve price amounting to Rs.1,54,48,680, in terms of Clause 2 of the terms and conditions wherein the highest bidder was required to deposit 10% of the quoted bid amount within 4 working days after closure of e-auction.
When the petitioner attempted to deposit the said 10% amount on the HSVP portal, the deposit was not accepted since the link was not active. When the petitioner made a query in this regard, they were informed by HSVP vide email dated 6-11-2023 that the auction had been cancelled, and upon enquiry, they were informed regarding cancellation of auction due to administrative reasons.
It was alleged that the HSVP under the garb of Clause 17 of Revised E-auction Policy exercised unfettered powers and cancelled the auction of the plot measuring 2284 sq. mtr., situated in Gurugram Section 42 without providing any reason or jurisdiction.
The counsel for HSVP conceded that the impugned email was a non-speaking order and submitted for disposing of the petition to enable the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, by assigning reasons in support of the same within 4 weeks.
The Court disposed of the instant petition in terms of statements made by the counsels and made it clear that the instant order would not constitute any expression of opinion on merits on either side and directed competent authority to examine the concerns/grievances raised by the petitioner strictly as per law.
[Nulife Prime Diagnostics LLP v. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 3243 of 2024, decided on 14-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Advocate Achintya Soni
For Respondents: Advocate Deepak Sabherwal
Buy Constitution of India HERE
