Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed against Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (‘HSIIDC’) by a highest bidder for an auction whose bid was rejected without assigning any reasons, Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal, JJ. allowed the petitioner to be heard after which HSIIDC would pass appropriate orders.

The instant matter pertains to which invited applications for allotment of commercial sites (Booth/SCO/Shop) through e-auction. The petitioner applied for allotment of a triple storey measuring 108 square meters at a specific location in Ambala district.

In terms of the conditions of auction, earnest money of Rs 1,30,140 was accordingly deposited by the petitioner on 21-11-2023. As against the reserve price of Rs 24,100 per square meter, the petitioner submitted a bid of Rs 47,100 per square meter and was adjudged as the highest bidder. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was always ready/willing to abide by the terms of the auction and remit the balance consideration, he was looking forward to receiving a letter of intent issued in his favour, followed by a letter of allotment.

However, the petitioner was informed regarding rejection of his bid vide communication dated 9-01-2024. The petitioner asserted that the petitioner was not informed of any reasons/grounds on which his bid got rejected, and that HSIIDC also did not pass any formal order in this regard. Thus, the petitioner urged that the action of HSIIDC was apparently unfair and arbitrary.

Vide fresh advertisement, the site in question was again sought to be auctioned as slated for 23-02-2024. It was submitted by the counsel for HSIIDC that the petitioner’s grievance/concerns would be heard and necessary orders on his representations/emails will accordingly be passed. It was further assured that the site in question would not be auctioned till any formal orders were passed, and accordingly sought for disposal of the instant petition.

The Court accordingly disposed of the petition in terms of statements agreed between the parties and called for the passing of appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

[Arun Bansal v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 663, decided on 20-02-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Advocate Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate Agam Bansal

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.