INDERJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "(i) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the letter dated 02.08.2017 may kindly be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional (ii) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the allotment letter in favour of the petitioner regarding shop No. 100/SP-72 as well as they may also be directed to execute the perpetual lease hold rights in favour of the petitioner by accepting remaining amount, (iii) by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, cancellation of the bid of the petitioner and condition No. 7 of the terms and conditions attached with the application dated 27.06.2017 may kindly be declared illegal and unconstitutional, (iv) any other appropriate writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be issued (v) cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Housing Board (to be referred as Board) issued an advertisement on 18.05.2017 for auction of the residential and commercial premises. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner deposited the required amount for participating in the auction sale scheduled to be held on 23.06.2017 for shop bearing No. 100/SP-72. The petitioner being the sole bidder deposited Rs. 5,30,000/- as required by the respondents according to the terms and condition. The Board vide letter dated 02.08.2017 rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner in view of condition No. 7 of the auction notice on the ground that the rates are competitive.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Board in passing of the order dated 02.08.2017 is arbitrary and illegal. Counsel further submits that the Board has rejected the bid without assigning any reason and the bid of the petitioner should have been accepted by the Board as the petitioner was the sole bidder for the shop in dispute. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalu Ram Ahuja and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 696 .;