- (1.) The peritioners seek quashing of an order/letter dated 18th September. 1986 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) whereby the bid of the Petitioners for plot No. 2A-6 in Raj Nagar District Centre, Ghaziabad has been rejected, and further directing the Respondent to act upon the bid of the Petitioner No. I and to execute the lease deed in respect of the said plot and accept the instalments of the remaining 75% of the amount of premium from the Petitioners.
(2.) The Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and Petitioner No. 2 is the Director in the said company. The Petitioners deal in the sale and purchase of the real state and also construct buildings for sale. The Respondent Ghaziabad Development Aushority published an advertisement in the first week of August, 1986 offering the plots of land for commercial multi-storeyed buildings etc. The said advertisement announced auction to be held on 21st August. 1986, of premium plots at the Ambedkar Marg District Centre and Raj Nagar District Centre. As scheduled the auction of the plots at Raj Nagar District Centre was held. The Petitioners offered a bid of Rs. 15,04,800.00 which was the highest bid. Toe officer conducting the auction accepted the bid of the Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner immediately thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 3,76,200/- through bank draft. Under Condition No. 22(v) of the terms and conditions of the auction the officer conducting the auction is to normally accept the highest bid offered at the fall of the hammer, subject to confirmation by the Vice-Chairman of the Respondent Condition No. 2(vi) lays down that the officer conducting the auction may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and submitted to the Vice-Chairman of the Respondent, reject any bid including the highest bid. Further, the Vice-Chairman may reject any bid including the highest bid without assigning any reason. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner No. 2 was informed that the intimation containing the acceptance of the bid by the Vice-Chairman shall be sent to the Petitioner No. 1 within a fortnight. The Petitioner was, however, surprised to receive a letter dated 18th September, 1986, which is the impugned order, from the Respondent informing that its bid was not accepted. The said letter was accompanied by a cheque of the amount deposited by the Petitioner No. 1. However, according to the Petitioner, though he received the said cheque for Rs. 3,76,200/- yet he did not encash it. The Petitioner?s case further is that the Respondent in rejecting the highest bid of the Petitioner has actually abused the exercise of the power vested in it
(3.) On behalf of the Respondent in the counter affidavit the stand taken is that since the offer of the Petitioner was not finally approved by the Vice-Chairman of Ghauabad Development Authority under the rules, the Petitioners grievance is unsustainable as the said order was passed in accordance with the rule and in terms of the power vested in the Vice-Chairman under it Further, though the bid of the Petitioner was the highest, the same was found inadequate and much less than the then market rate of commercial land in that area. Since the existing rates fixed in the year 1983 were considered to be too low in view of fast changing prices of the land. A Sub-Committee was constituted and the rates were considered for revision. This sub-committee revised the rate and fixed at Rs. 1,000/- per sq metre on 18th October, 1985 from Rs. 750/- per sq metre which was in the year 1983 In view of this the bid of the Petitioner was found to be too low and hence the Vice-Chairman did not approve the same. Petitioner in rebuttal in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is averred that the total area of the disputed plot being 952 sq. metres and the Petitioner?s bid being for Rs. 15,04,800/-, the rate came to Rs. 1580 67 p per sq, metre which is higher than the revised rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq metre. Since this later part of the averment appeared in the rejoinder affidavit we permitted the Respondent to file supplementary counter affidavit in rebuttal if they so desire, which they did. In spite of this supplementary counter affidavit, since certain vagueness still presisted, we directed the Respondents to produce the records of this case.;