Dismissed

Abhinav Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023WRIC/29628/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to allot a plot after his bid was rejected despite being the highest. Court held that as the petitioner was the sole bidder, the authority could lawfully reject the bid to invite more applications and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer to quash intimation and direction to allot plot declined. Petitioner directed to participate in fresh bidding.

Abhinav Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178901-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29628 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Abhinav Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tahira Kazmi,Quazi Mohammad Akaram,Saiful Islam Siddiqui

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arjun Prasad Yadav,Harsh Vardhan Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶7

The petitioner had participated in bid for allotment of plot in question, which came to be advertised by the respondent development authority on 25.06.2022. The minimum amount for the plot was fixed as Rs.22,000/-per sq meter and the petitioner states that his bid of Rs.23,000/-per sq meter was the highest. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his bid was higher, yet the authorities have not accepted the bid amount and has cancelled the petitioner's bid. Consequential order intimated to the petitioner on 18.11.2022 is, accordingly, challenged.

¶8

At the outset, Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, appearing for the development authority raises objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order of Vice Chairman, cancelling the petitioner's bid dated 15.10.2022, has not been assailed.

¶9

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the Vice Chairman dated 15.10.2022 has never been served upon the petitioner.

¶10

During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 20th June, 2001 which lays down guiding principles to be followed in the matter of the allotment of plot by the Development Authority or Housing Board. The guiding principles are annexed. Clause 14 of the guiding principles deals with the number of bidders and is relevant for the present purposes, which is consequently reproduced hereinbelow:

¶11

"14. बबललददतदओओककसओखयदय-

¶12

ककसलभलबबललममकमससकमदबबबललददतदहहगस।कवशसषपररसससकतयहममएकबबललददतदकककवड परभलकवचदरककयदजदसकतदहहपरनतत, इसकसललएउसककपपररकववसचनदजहससपशनगतसमपलत ककतनलबदरनललदमलममलगदयलगयलतसदककतनलबबललआईसल, समपलतममकयदखरदबलअसवद कयदअचछदईहहकरनसकसबददहलकवषयआयतक/उपदधयककबअगसदररतककयदजदयसगदलजसपर उपदधयकददरदकनररयललयदजदसकसगद।" आयतक/

¶13

It is urged by the respondents that as only one bid was submitted, in respect of the property in question, therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner's bid and, that property will be readvertised.

¶14

The contention of the respondents is opposed on the ground that their action is arbitrary.

¶15

Perusal of the records would go to show that the process for allotment has been initiated by inviting bids for various plots, including the plot in question. The petitioner, admittedly, is the only bidder in respect of plot and the question is as to whether the authority is obliged to accept such a bid or can opt not to do so with an intent to invite more applications by readvertising the plot.

¶16

From the facts that appear on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is merely a bidder and his status is that of an offerer. Unless the bid is accepted, no agreement/contract would come into existence. The publication of scheme otherwise would be an invitation to offer.

¶17

The authority thus would be well within its right not to accept the bid for valid and justifiable grounds. The guiding principles, issued by the State for the purposes of the allotment of plots, clearly provides that a single bid ordinarily would not be considered. In that view, if the authorities do not accept the single bid and proceed to readvertise the plot, we find no error in such decision of the authority concerned. No right has otherwise crystalized in favour of the petitioner, merely because his bid is the highest. In that view of the matter, we refuse to interfere in the writ petition and decline the prayer made to quash the intimation dated 18.11.2022. The petitioner's prayer for direction to allot the plot in his favour is also declined.

¶18

It is, however, provided that the authorities shall not settle the plot in favour of anyone, except by inviting fresh bids, and it will be open to the petitioner to participate in the same.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 MN/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhinav Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Binnami

Santosh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kalloo Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Western Carrier India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Jaravati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others