Writ petition seeking allotment of an e-auctioned industrial plot and quashing of its re-auction notice. DSIIDC had stipulated a minimum of two bidders; the petitioner was sole bidder with a bid well below prices realised for similar plots. The court held DSIIDC validly exercised its NIT right to cancel and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~107
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Garg, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Anushka Bhatnagar and Ms. Vaishnavi Gosain, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi and Ms. Shreya Manjari and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates for DSIIDC along with Mr. Waseem Ahmad, Legal Assistant for DSIIDC % Date of Decision: 05th February, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL) CM APPL. 768/2024 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 160/2024 & CM APPL. 767/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 1 of 6
Corporation (‘DSIIDC’), to issue an allotment letter and handover the vacant possession of industrial plot bearing no. 1356, Sector-H, ad-measuring 368.32 sqm., DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi (‘subject plot’) to the Petitioner being the successful bidder in the e-auction held on 03rd November, 2023. The Petitioner further seeks quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’) dated 24th December, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 2 for re-auctioning the subject plot.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 2 of 6
and filed along with counter affidavit as Annexure R2. He states that however, contrary to the said instruction of having minimum two bidders, the e-auction went live on 03rd November, 2023, leading to an undesirable situation where the Petitioner herein was the sole bidder.
3.1. He states that thereafter, upon analysis of highest bids received for similarly situated plots in the e-auction held on the same date, the Respondent No.2 assessed that the bid received from the Petitioner was much lower than the highest bids submitted for similarly situated plots. He states that the Respondent No.2 received an average price of ₹ 1,26,789/- per square meter for similarly situated plots, whereas, the Petitioner only offered a bid of ₹ 93,893/- per square meter. He states that therefore, the difference of ₹ 32,896/- per square meter in the bid submitted by Petitioner and received from other bidders for similar situated plots, is substantial and the bid of Petitioner is undervalued and non-competitive qua subject plot.
3.2. He states that therefore, acting in financial interest of the Respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority upon finding that the Petitioner’s bid was not competitive, acted in pursuance to its powers reserved under Clause IV (7) (i) & (ii) and Clause VI (3) of the NIT rejecting the bid qua the subject plot. He states that even as per Clause VI (1) of the NIT, the Respondent No.2 has the power to withdraw the subject plot from bidding process at any stage.
3.3. He states that as a matter of fact, the subject plot has been reauctioned on 2nd February, 2024, through e-auction. Nine bidders participated in the said re-auction and the H-1 bid received by the Respondent No. 2 is for a sum of ₹ 4,70,32,768/- which surpasses the Petitioner’s bid by ₹ 1.25 Crores. He states that the Petitioner did not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 3 of 6
participate in the said e-auction. He states that therefore, the Respondent No. 2 has acted in its best interest and no interference is merited.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 5 of 6
made out for granting the reliefs sought in this petition.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 5, 2024/ msh/aa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:13:50
W.P.(C) 160/2024
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether DSIIDC could reject the petitioner's H-1 bid as sole bidder and re-auction the industrial plot under the NIT's reserved rights.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to allotment of the subject plot as highest bidder in the e-auction.
Hemlata Gupta
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
DSIIDC
Manmohan
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
