A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petition assails the validity of an order passed by the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority ('G. D. A.' for short hereafter) cancelling the bid of Devi Shankar Agarwal, the petitioner no. 2, who was the highest bidder at an auction held by the G. D. A. on 16-8-85 for allotment of commercial multi-storeyed plots at Raj Nagar District Centre, Ghaziabad, under permanent leases.
(2.) THESE are the essential facts. An advertisement was issued by the G. D. A. for allotment of twelve plots for multi-storeyed Commercial complexes at Raj Nagar District Centre. The date fixed for the auction was 16-8-85. The terms and conditions for auction published in the advertisement were :- (i) Entry by Demand Draft of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the G. D. A. ; (ii) 25% of the bid amount to be paid at the fall of hammer ; and (iii) The remaining 75% to be paid within sixty days from the date of the letter of acceptance to be issued by the Vice-Chairman, G. D. A. The advertisement further mentioned that the detailed terms and conditions were available from the G. D. A. Ghaziabad. In pursuance of this advertisement the auction of nine plots took place on 16-8-85. We are concerned here with the auction of plot no. A-4 measuring 700 sq. metres. The petitioner who had deposited Rs.25,000/,- as entry fee was adjudged the highest bidder, he having offered to pay at the rate of Rs.760/,- per sq. metre. He accordingly deposited a further sum of Rs.1,08,000/- on the fall of the hammer, which amount together with the deposit of Rs.25,000/- aggregated Rs.1,33,000/ representing 25% of the total amount offered by the said petitioner for the plot in question. The file containing the bid sheet and the report prepared by the committee comprising three officers of the G. D. A., namely, Superintending Engineer, Deputy Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer conducting the auction sale of the nine plots held on 16-8-85 was submitted to the Vice-Chairman. The report stated that in pursuance of the advertisement issued for the auction of plots for multi-storeyed Commercial plots, the auction was held in the presence of the Board of Officers. Nine plots were put to auction at which the highest bids ranged around Rs.750/- per sq. metre which seemed low and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Committee/the Board of Officers recommended that the bids be cancelled. By his order dated 5-9-85 the Vice-Chairman accepted the recommendation of the Board of Officers and cancelled the allotment order. Subsequently the petitioner received a letter dated 7-10-85 from the Accounts Officer of the G. D. A. along with a cheque of the G. D. A. for Rs.1,33,000/- stating that the amount deposited by the petitioner was being refunded to him. This was in pursuance of the decision of the Vice-Chairman cancelling the petitioner's bid. The petitioners assailed the validity of the order of the Vice-Chairman cancelling their bid broadly on two grounds : first, that the decision of the Vice-Chairman cancelling the petitioners' bid was founded on extraneous considerations and is otherwise too manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law; second, that the G. D. A. has discriminated against the petitioners inasmuch as in circumstances materially similar to those obtaining in respect of plot no. A-4, by an order dated 25-9-85 passed after the cancellation of the petitioner's bid, the Vice-Chairman accepted the bid of another individual, namely, Sri Randhir Chopra for a plot in the same area, namely, Raj Nagar District Centre Commercial Complex in pursuance of an auction held only ten days before the auction of the petitioners' plot at the rate of Rs.760/- per sq. metre the same rate which was offered by the petitioners for the disputed plot.
(3.) WE will take up the first of these two issues first. WE are constrained to observe at the very outset that though in the petition it has been asserted that the petitioners' bid has been cancelled on extraneous considerations, no details in respect of this charge have been furnished. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to support this ground by referring to circumstances emerging from the affidavits and the original record produced before us by the G. D. A. which, in his submission, clearly established that the cancellation was not founded on the grounds on which it purports to be but for some other reasons. It was urged that on the own showing of the G. D. A. as emerging from the affidavits filed on their behalf the sector or circle rates prevalent on the relevant date for such plots, namely 16-8-85, was Rs. 750/- per sq. metre which was admittedly lower than that offered by the petitioner for the plot in question. The inadequacy of the price offered by the petitioner, it was contended, could not hence have been the real reason for rejecting his bid. It was further submitted that in any case the revised rates prescribed by the G. D. A. raising the old sector or circle rates by 50% became effective only from 18-10-85, i.e., after the date on which the auction in question took place. The revised rates could not hence be treated as a valid basis for judging whether the petitioner's offer was low. Having given the matter our careful consideration we find no merit in these contentions. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the G. D. A. it has been asserted that the sector rate of Rs.750/- per sq. metre for commercial plots fixed last in 1983, had undergone significant escalation since then warranting a fresh look for an upward revision of the old rates and the matter was already under consideration at the time of the impugned auction before a committee appointed by the G. D. A. for that purpose to go into the whole issue. This exercise for an upward revision of the existing rates fixed in 1983 had been undertaken at the instance of the A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad. The committee consisted of the A. D. M. (Finance), Secretary, G. D. A., Special Officer, G. D. A. and the Competent Officer City Board. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that no doubt the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. metre was fixed by the G. D. A. after the auction but at the same time the fact that the rates fixed in 1983 had become obsolete in view of the significant rise in the sector rates since they were last fixed, was known to the Board of Officers conducting the sale which made the recommendation for rejection of the petitioner's bid as well as the Vice-Chairman who eventually rejected the petitioner's bid. It is also stated that there was no reserve rate of Rs.750/- fixed for the auction. Consequently, the Vice-Chairman taking note of the escalation in the sector rates rejected the petitioner's bid on the same ground on which he had rejected the bids of all others who had participated at the auction for nine plots held on 16-8-85.;