- (1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner Suresh Kumar Kannuajia for quashing the order dated 28th October, 2015 passed by the State Government and the order dated 20th October, 2015 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in relation to the auction of land over Plot No. CP -44, Sector - E, Sitapur Road and another Plot No. CF -01, Viram Khand - 5, Lucknow, that was held on separate dates. The said auctions were set aside and cancelled on 20.12.2007 and 30.6.2008 respectively. Against the cancellation orders, several writ petitions were filed including one by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 7807 (MB) of 2008. The entire bunch of writ petitions including that one of Sri Rampal Yadav being Writ Petition No. 397 (MB) of 2008, were disposed of on 21st July, 2014 with a direction to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority to consider the representation of all the petitioners and pass orders within six weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing keeping in view the decision in the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja and another v/s. Delhi Development Authority,, 2008 (10) SCC 696 and for a period of two months it was directed that status quo as was existing on that day shall be maintained by the parties.
(2.) The ground for cancellation of the auction proceedings in both the matters was that since there was no effective competition reflected by adequate participation of bidders and that only two persons in one of the auctions had participated, it was decided to cancel the auction proceedings. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition contending that since he was the highest bidder in the auction which was held after due advertisement, there was no valid reason for the decision taken by the Lucknow Development Authority to cancel the auction as no tangible reason existed in public interest to cancel the same. It was also contended that the bid of the petitioner was higher than the reserved price and therefore the cancellation and return of the draft to the petitioner was unjustified.
(3.) In this background, the Vice Chairman proceeded to hear the petitioner and after considering the representation rejected the same vide order dated 20th October, 2014 in both the cases as well as the other connected matters. A copy of the orders passed in both the matters are on record and they indicate that the petitioner had appeared on the date fixed i.e. 22.9.2014 and had placed his point of view pressing his representation. A copy of the decision was also sent to the petitioners in both matters.;