- (1.)THE short, rather only question raised in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner is whether decision of respondent (Indore Development Authority) dated 12.5.2000, contained in Annexure P 3, rejecting all the tenders including that of the tender of petitioner, is legal and proper ? Or whether it can be termed as an act of arbitrariness on the part of respondent, thereby entitling this Court to quash it under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India ? Facts is brief are that respondent No. 1 Indore Development Authority, for brevity hereinafter referred to as IDA, on 7.4.2000 (Annexure P 2), invited tenders from public at large for sale of certain plots in their Scheme No. 94. Petitioner and three more submitted their tenders quoting their respective prices for purchase of the said plot. The following were the rates offered by the four parties including petitioner : JUDGEMENT_46_MPWN1_2002.htm
(2.)BY Annexure P 3 dated 12.5.2000, the respondent was pleased to cancel the entire bid saying that in view of the fact that land in question is situated near Bombay Hospital and that it has more usefulness and, thirdly, the tender was invited for the first time, all the tenders are rejected. Indeed this decision was taken by the Committee consisting of three senior officials two from IDA and third one from State Joint Director, Town and Country Planning.
It is this decision of the IDA which is impugned by the petitioner in this petition essentially on the ground that since the price quoted by the petitioner was the highest amongst all four and, secondly, no reasons having been assigned for rejection, a case of arbitrary action or, one may say, unreasonableness on the part of IDA is made out. It was urged that when the petitioner was admittedly found to be the highest, the IDA was bound to allot the land to them. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on rule 18 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Anya Samrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975, as also on an authority reported in 1994 JLJ 571 (Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. v. State).

(3.)I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel. In my opinion, no case of arbitrariness is discernable if one reads the impugned order Annexure P 3 referred supra. It is not a case of grant to a person who is lower than the petitioner. In such eventuality, a clear case of arbitrary action on the part of IDA is made out unless they satisfactorily explain their conduct as to why a person (tenderer) who quoted less was preferred than the one who quoted more.