Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) Written statements on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed to be taken on record.
(2.) The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 7.12.2015, Annexure P.10 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the auction of the site of primary school measuring 7500 square meters situated at Sector 28, Faridabad. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from re-auctioning the site.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner trust is part of the Winsoft group of Institutions owning many schools and institutions across North India. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), Faridabad advertised E-auction of 12 commercial sites at Faridabad in collaboration with its official partner respondent No.3 i.e. Nextenders (India) Pvt. Limited which provides technical platform for Eduction. On 20.11.2015, the petitioner with a view to impart education at primary level to children applied for e-auction of primary school site measuring 7500 square meters at Sector 28, Faridabad and deposited Rs. 1000/- towards service charges. On 21.11.2015, the petitioner deposited security deposit i.e. Rs. 14.20 lakhs as 2% of the reserve price of Rs. 7,09,87,500/- for the site. On 23.11.2015, Annexure P.4 the respondents generated user ID and password for the petitioner which is required for participating in the bidding process. On 23.11.2015, the petitioner was declared highest bidder at Rs. 10,83,87,500/- against the reserve price of Rs. 7,09,87,500/- for the site in question. Accordingly, the respondents generated challan of Rs. 1,08,38,750/- i.e. 10% of the bidding amount as earnest deposit money. On 26.11.2015, Annexure P.6 the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,08,38,750/- as the earnest money for which acknowledgement dated 27.11.2015, Annexure P.7 was issued to the petitioner. On 1.12.2015, the petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2 and sought allotment letter. The petitioner was asked to complete all the requisite formalities of depositing the documents. On 2.12.2015, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for issuing the allotment letter but he was informed that respondent No.2 was considering to reject the successful bid of the petitioner. The petitioner sought documents under Right to Information Act, 2005 relating to the bidding process and reasons for rejection. However nothing was heard. Vide order dated 7.12.2015, Annexure P.10 respondent No.2 arbitrarily rejected the successful and highest bid of the petitioner. Hence the instant writ petition.;