Writ petition seeking allotment of an industrial plot for which the petitioner was sole bidder in a DSIIDC e-auction, and quashing of the re-auction notice. Court held DSIIDC had reserved an unqualified right to cancel a non-competitive bid; the bid was substantially below market comparables. Petition dismissed.
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.
$~108
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Garg, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. K. Dhawan, Standing Counsel for R-2 with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. V.K. Teng, Ms. Shivani Taneja and Mr. Anwesha Singh, Advocates for R-2
% 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. 770/2024 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 161/2024 & CM APPL. 769/2024
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 1 of 6
possession of industrial plot bearing no. 1353, 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 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 2 of 6
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.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 ₹ 5,68,32,768/- which surpasses the Petitioner’s bid by ₹ 2.23 Crores. He states that the Petitioner did not participate in the said e-auction. He states that therefore, the Respondent No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 3 of 6
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 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 4 of 6
Respondent No. 2. Several of these plots were located in the same neighbourhood i.e., Narela. The Respondent No. 2 has placed on record an analysis of the bids received for eight (8) plots in Narela to demonstrate that the average price realised in the bid was ₹ 1,26,789/- per sqm. In contrast, the bid of the Petitioner herein is ₹ 93,893/- per sqm. Thus, the bid of the Petitioner was lower by a substantial sum of ₹ 32,896/- per sqm. The said facts of comparison are not disputed by the Petitioner. Further, the subject plot was re-auctioned on 2nd February, 2024 and has secured an H-1 bid of ₹ 5,68,32,768/-, which exceeds the Petitioner’s bid by ₹ 2.23 crores. The Petitioner has not disputed the said facts and figures.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 7.02.2024 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 5 of 6
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 16:18:41
W.P.(C) 161/2024
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether DSIIDC could reject the petitioner's highest bid and cancel the e-auction under Clause VI of the NIT when she was a single bidder.
Whether the petitioner's bid was non-competitive compared to bids for similarly situated plots, justifying re-auction.
Ruchi Goyal
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (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
