M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THESE bunch of writ petitions involve common question of law thus have been heard and decided by this order. The Rajasthan Housing Board issued an advertisement to auction the plots/houses on different locations and even in different cities. The petitioners are those who have not only participated in the auction but stood highest bidder therein. After acceptance of the initial amount, their bid was not accepted rather it was cancelled by the respondents without assigning any reason.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that petitioners participated in the auction and quoted the price higher than Minimum Sale Price (in short "MSP") prescribed by the respondents. While cancelling the bid, no reason was assigned. The MSP is determined based on various factor which includes the DLC rate, previous price fetched in the area and other factors. This has been admitted by the Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board in his affidavit filed as per direction of the court. When bid given by the petitioners was much higher than MSP, cancellation without reason deserves to be set aside with a direct in to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioners. It is further stated that after opening of the bid, the respondents were under an obligation to decide confirmation/cancellation within a period of 45 days. However in the instant case, cancellation was made after 8 to 11 months. The delay in cancellation of bid/auction cannot be to the benefit of the respondents rather in such circumstances, a presumption should be drawn for confirmation of sale immediately on expiry of period of 45 days from the date of opening of the bid. In view of the above also, this court should direct for deemed confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioners. The case of discrimination has also been alleged. It is stated that in few areas where bid price was not much higher to the MSP yet sale was confirmed leaving bid of the petitioners which was much higher to the MSP thus discrimination was caused at the instance of the Minister who was having no authority to cancel the bid given by the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Prahlad Sharma in his writ petition further states that there was no condition in the advertisement for confirmation of sale thus respondents were not authorized to take up the matter for confirmation of sale and while doing so, cancel it. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Valji Khimji & Company vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) & Ors., reported in : 2009 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 450 has been given. It is further stated that cancellation of highest price bid cannot be made without assigning reason and if cancellation is made, it needs interference of the court. A reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., reported in, (2008) 10 SCC 696 and in the case of Kamlakar Bhimrao Patil vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, reported in : AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1396 and lastly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. vs. Jahan Khan, reported in : AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3153 has also been given. He submits that no reason for cancellation of bid has been assigned thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.;