Smt. Neena Khatri vs RESPONDENTS

Judgment

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Seeretary, Departnlent of Agriculture, DKS Bhawan, Manti'alaya, Raipur (C.G.).

2. Krishi Upaj Mandi E'aniit.i, Durg District, ^ Through the Secretary Dhamdha Road, Durg (C.G.)

3. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Durg district, Collectorate Parisar Durg'(C.G.) ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA APPROPRIATE l^qilTfS) O'F PROHIBITION AND s1b^o 2; > h^f^ i» ^' 'iS* 1§lui o AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1602 OF 2012 PETITIONER Gajanand Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others And W.P (C) Nos.1585, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 1690, 1691, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1831, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1862 and, 1863 of 2012 Post for pronouncement of the orders on the 7 day of January, 2013 ^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge .\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1602 OF 2012 PETITIONER Gajanand Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1585 OF 2012 PETITIONER AshutoshVyas Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1657 OF 2012 PETITIONER Manoj Kumar Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1658 OF 2012 PETITIONER Ramkishan Singh Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1659 OF 2012 PETITIONER Kailash Rungta Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1660 OF 2012 PETITIONER Shashank Singh RESPQNDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1661 OF 2012 PETITIONER Kamlesh Rungta Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1662 OF 2012 PETITIONER Vijay Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1663 OF 2012 PETITIONER Sunil Goel Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1664 OF 2012 PETITIQNER ' Ghanshyam agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C)NO. 1665 OF 2012 PETITIONER M/S Balaji Enterprises Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1666 OF 2012 PETITIONER Subhash Chand Bakliwal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others / WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1667 OF 2012 PETITIONER Sunil Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITIONYC) N0. 1668 OF 2012 PETITIONER AnkurPincha Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1669 OF 2012 PETITIONER Awesh Duggad Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1670 OF 2012 PETITIONER . Pradeep Agrawal RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1671 OF 2012 PETITIONER Kantilal Bothra Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1672 OF 2012 PETITIONER Bastimal Surana RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus ..'^-K'T?^^ .^^^ '^gjty®t !'. \'v?:./ '^-^../ -. ^y^^ 'v '<..,. "^ f^ WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1673 OF 2012 PETITIONER Rajendra Kumar Kothari Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C} N0. 1690 OF 2012 PETITIONER Shree Sita Agrotech Private Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1691 OF 2012 PETITIONER Shree Sita Refiners Private Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION fC) N0. 1712 OF 2012 PETITIONER . Devendra Kumar Jain Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1713 OF 2012 PETITIONER Subhash Sethi Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1714 OF 2012 PETmONER AkilGori Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others '^ ^^w^^ .^. ^^•^: -^ ? _^,, . ;'"{ts-'.:. •^^^ -. WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1715 OF 2012 PETITIONER

Smt. Neena Khatri Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1716 OF 2012 PETITIONER Nitin Khatri Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1717 OF 2012 PETITIONER Manoj Goel Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1718 OF 2012 PETITIONER Vipin Khatri Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C} N0. 1719 OF 2012 PETITIONER Smt. Mamta Mehta Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1720 OF 2012 PETITIONER Satyawan Abhishek Kukreja RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1721 OF 2012 PETITIONER Pradip Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C)NO. 1722 OF 2012 PETITIONER Krishna Kumar Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1723 OF 2012 PETITIONER MukeshJain Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1724 OF 2012 PETITIONER Manish Kumar Parmar Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1725 OF 2012 PETITIONER Rajesh Jain Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1726 OF 2012 PETITIONER Vishal Bakhtiyar RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1727 QF 2012 PETITIONER VinitJain Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1728 OF 201 2 PETITIONER Vasudev Sachdev Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1831 OF 2012 PETITIONER ManojJain Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1839 OF 2012 PETITIONER Prashant Taunk Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1842 OF 2012 PETITIONER Shailendra Verma Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1843 OF 20 12 PETITIONER DipeshTaunk Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1844 OF 2012 PETITIONER Satyaveer Yadav Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1845 OF 2012 PETITIONER PrashantAgrawal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1846 OF2012 PETITIONER Rakesh Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1862 OF 2012 PETITIONER Uttamchand Jain Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others And WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1863 OF 2012 PETITIONER SapanJain Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petitions underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Saurabh Jain & Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Shri P.S.Koshy with Shri Ashish Surana and Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocates for respective petitioners. ;^" ^-. ? f - _:. i ' '^ ..-;,^' ""^ t^ •t. i i Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Manish Nigam & Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocates for the respondent - Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board & Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. (Delivered on this _z_Atlay of January, 2013) W.P.(C) Nos. 1602, 1585,. 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663,1664,1665,1666, 1667, 1668,1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 1690,1691,1712,1713,1714, 1715,1716,1717,1718,1719, 1720, 1721,1722,1723,1724,1725, 1726, 1727,1728,1831,1839,1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1862 and 1863 of 2012, involve common facts as well as one and the same question of law, require to be decided by common order. The cause of action, in all these petitions,arose from the order dated

30.08.2012, whereby auction of 56 shops of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg (forshort {the Samiti'), was cancelled. As all the facts are common, the facts and documents referred in the first petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1602/2012, are being taken for consideration. The Samiti issued a notice inviting offer (for short 'the NIO') for leasing out 56 sundry shops in Navin Mandi Premises, Dhamdha Road, Durg on 07.01.201 1 (Page 27). It was provided that the bid may be submitted by registered post on or before 29.01.2011 (Saturday) during office hours. There should be a separate bid for each sundry shop. The requisite fee will be deposited by 28.01.2011. The relevant conditions, interalia, in the N10 was that the bid will be opened on 31.01.2011 at 11 O'clock in respect of Sundry Shops ^•-;:.rL-^ ^^^•""9S . ^' .^ .:„ ^. '^,, "^^' 10 No.1 to 28 and on 01.02.2011 at the same time, in respect of Sundry Shops No. 29 to 56. The successful bidders will be required to deposit a sum of Rs.03 lacs as security amount within a period of 15 days from the date of information. The successful bidders were required to deposit the difference of caution money (Dharohar Rashi) and the security amount (total Rs. 05 lacs) and the bid amount after removal of the boundaries, and the agreement was to be executed within a period of 30 days. The petitioners were the successful bidders. According to the petitioners, the security amount of Rs.03 lacs was deposited within a period of 15 days from the date of information to them. The remaining amount could not be deposited and the agreement was also not executed. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P/1) was passed, quashing the auction in question. Subsequently, by letter

01.09.2012 (Annexure P/2), petitioners were informed in respect of cancellation of the auction proceedings of 56 sundry shops. Thus, these petitions. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Saurabh Jain & Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Shri P.S.Koshy with Shri Ashish Surana and Shri T.K.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 03 lacs within a period of 15 days from the date they were informed by the Samiti. Initially, the petitioners were asked to deposit the difference of the total amount of bid. All the successfui bidders formed an an association namely; Krishi Upaj Mandi Vyapari Sangh, Durg (for short "the Association") on

08.09.2011 (Annexure - P/7). TheCoordinator of the Association 11 informed the Secretary of the Samiti objecting demand of balance amount before completion of the developmental work. The Secretary of the Samiti by letter dated 10.09.2011 (Annexure - P/8) granted one more month's time to deposit the required amount. On

28.9.2011 (Annexure - P/9), the Association wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Samiti not to demand the balance amount before developing the area. The Secretary of the Samiti issued a notice dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure - P/10) that new notices for depositing the balance amount will be issued after the work in the area is complete. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no reason to cancel the auction wherein the petitioners had offered the price much above the reserved price i.e. minimum price, fixed for the shop and they have also deposited the security amount of Rs.3.00 lacs within a period of 15 days. The remaining amount could not be deposited, as the Secretary of the Samiti himself has informed that a separate notice will be issued after developmental work. On 18.6.2012 (Annexure - P/13) the Secretary of the Samiti informed that the notice to deposit remaining amount and for execution of the agreement will be issued after approval of Chhattisgarh Raj'ya Krishi Vipanan Board (for short "the Vipanan the auction by the Managing Director of Board"), in response to the letter dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure P/12), sent by the member ofthe Association.

7. Learned counsel would next submit the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The observation of the respondent authorities that there was a lack of competition is without any basis, 12 as the same is based on assumptions and presumptions. The minimum bid price was fixed at Rs.17 Lacs and the offer made by the petitioners and others were more than Rs.17 lacs, thus, holding that there was no sufficient competition is unreasonable and arbitrary. Once the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.03 lacs after having been declared as successful bidders and thereafter, the Secretary of the Samiti has not intimated the time for depositing the balance amount, and also for executing the agreement, the contract was complete, as contemplated under Section 8 of the Indian ContractAct, 1872.

8. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in such a situation, where contract was almost complete, the impugned order canceling the auction was prejudicial and violative of principles of natural justice.

9. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing with Shri Ashish Surana, learned Advocate, in addition to the above, would submit that the respondents have right to cancel the agreement, but for specific reasons, showing that there was some irregularity or illegality or the required minimum price was not offered, but not in these cases, the offer of the petitioners was more than the minimum price fixed by the respondent authorities. Thus, the impugned order be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to execute the agreement after depositing the balance amount by the petitioners and hand over possession ofthe concerned shops to them.

10. Shri Koshy would further submit the reasons shown by the authorities are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that competitive price in auction was not available and on that ground the 13 entire auction proceedings cannot be set aside, keeping in view the fact that minimum price was offered and the petitioners were held successful in case of respective shops.

11. Learned counsel placed reliance on Tata Cellular v. Union of India1, Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anothes2 and Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. MasoodAhmed Khan and Others3.).

12. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing with Shri Manish Nigam and Shri Rahul Tamaskar, learned Advocates, for the respondenWipnan Board and the Samiti, would submit clause 11 of the N10, it was clearly stated that the detailed terms and conditions has been provided separately and the same is available with the office of the Samiti. The Samiti cannot transfer, allot or lease an immovable property of the Samiti without the prior approval of the Managing Director of the Vipanan Board and even thereafter, auction will not be complete unless the successful bids are approved by the Managing Director of the Vipanan Board.

13. Shri Bhaduri would further submit that section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972') provides that no immovable property shall be acquired, transferred by way of sale, lease or otherwise without the prior permission ofthe Managing Director in writing. In the cases on hand, the list of successful bidders was never approved by the Managing Director of the Vipnan Board. Shri Bhaduri would rely on the detaited 1AIR1996SC11 2 3 (2001)78cc 491 (2010)98cc 496 .-^•f1" ^ 14 rules, regulations (Annexure - R/1), which was referred in clause 11 oftheNIO.

14. Clause 5 of the circular dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure R/1) filed by the Vipnan Board, clearly provides that after auction, the lease will be placed before the Managing Director of the Vipanan Board for approval. Thereafter, agreemenVlease will be executed. In the cases on hand, successful bids in the auction was not approved and as such, no right has accrued in favour ofthe writ petitioners. ^'

15. Shri Bhaduri would next submit the price offered by the petitioners was not competitive as in most of the cases, as per list (Annexure R/2) filed by the Vipnan Board, except for shop No. 2, 13, 15, 27, 33 and 51, the offers made by the petitioners ranges from Rs.

17.05 lacs to 17.41 lacs. In fact, it appears that all the petitioners grouped together and decided to offer just few thousands more than the minimum price and obtained the bid. It is further found that for 34 shops, only 01 offer was made for each shop, for 18 shops, 02 offers were made and for remaining 04 shops, 03 offers were made. This fact also indicates that there was no competition and competitive price was not offered as 1, 2, 3 applications for all the shops, as aforestated, have been made.

16. Shri Bhaduri would submit that after receiving the report by the Joint Director (Regulation), proper enquiry was made and it was found that the auction was a sham and there was no competition to obtain maximum price on auction of 56 shops. Thus, it was dedded to cancel the entire auction proceedings and to hold a fresh auction. ^"M 'r ii ^.ft^%^ ^-vm^^ „ '^^•^ \. -'^y 15

17. Shri Bhaduri would lastly submit that the contract was not complete and as such, the petitioners have not acquired any right to allotment on the basis of deposit of caution money and security amount, as the balance amount was not deposited and the agreement was also not executed between the parties.

18. Shri Bajaj, learned Government Advocate with Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would the arguments advanced by learned counsel J respondent Vipnanan Board and Samiti.

19. Indisputably, the offers were invited after obtaining prior permission of the Managing Director of the Vipnan Board for leasing out 56 sundry shops situated in Navin Mandi Premises, Dhamdha Road, Durg. The petitioners, along with few others offered bids and they were found successful, being the highest bidders in the respective shops. As aforestated, on examination of the records, it was found that there was only one offer for 34 shops, two offers for 18 shops and three offers were made for 04 shops. The prices offered by the petitioners, except in six cases, were 17.05 lacs to 17.41 lacs. For shop No. 2, the offer was 20.51 lacs, for shop No. 13, it was Rs. 18.81 lacs, forshop No. 15, itwas Rs. 18.25 lacs, forshop No. 27, it was Rs.18.33 lacs, for shop No. 33, it was Rs.20.01 lacs and for shop No. 51, itwas Rs. 18.61 lacs.

20. The contention of learned counset for the petitioners that reasons were not sufficient to come to the conclusion that competitive price was not available, does not merit acceptance. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there was only one offer for 34 shops and also the difference of price offered was ranging between Rs. 5000 to Rs. s%^^^ .^^^ I'l&rfa" (^€/ ..; ""^-.^'^y 16 41000/- only, more than the minimum price. Thus, sufficient reasons were available to hold that the price offered by the participants was not competitive. There cannot be a quarrel on the proposition of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra). Sufficient reasons are available in the present cases.

21. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has rightly come to the conclusion that for want of competitive price, as the purpose was to obtain maximum ^ price on leasing out theshops constructed by the Samiti, the auction deserves to be cancelled and accordingly, itwas cancelled.

22. The contention of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners the contract was complete, is noticed to be rejected, as indisputably, the .petitioners have not deposited the remaining balance amount, which may be for one or other reason and also not executed the agreement. The confirmation ofthe auction was subject to approval of the Managing Director of the Vipanan Board, which was clearly provided in the detailed terms and conditions as is evident from the clause 5.0 of the circular dated 23.11.2000, which reads as under: "5.0 ^T f^H Pl^^lY ^ ^'ST ^' ^4^4dl^l^ irf^^TT ^ ?reT cTPj^ ^t^ ^ ^TT^T ^TTST ^T t^ ^? *tI-t<P ST^^ ^T ^RoIT ^-TTOT vff f^TT ^TT^'TT I •^T '^ f. ^SR) ^ ^i'^Rld 276r ^77^7 ^ ^ ^V^M/^W^ yf^^T ^ wfldlrfl f^ WT^ ^ W^Wm, WW'^T ^/c/0 ^ ^93^' 3/^}cf^ J^pJT u^S fm^ snw^ ^ svmp w sFi^/^jf y^7^ fi^//^a f^TT ^n^7TT~^^[ ^r ^3 'TOY ^R ^c^ q'vjft ^ffcllRd ^tPlRl ^r^^ 'q^t 17 f^TS ^fT^^T, ^TTf^ ^re W^ ^t f^ ^t^ ^t^T ^ 7lt^TT/?Tf^ ^»T ^lt^PT/^P^t ?rrTT f^ fe^T ^t, f^T f^RT ?raT TCR OTif^T f uw acii^i^ f^T-ft ^rf^r cftvjf i^e: ^ ^oq -cTTuf ^'/f^T^ ^ ^TT ^' /^^^^T ^ ^qr ^\ f^FT 3T^T cW TTP<T ^ t ^ ^^^^ cft ^J^^^ft 11 ^T'Mft ^' 13^^PTT f^T ^f ^nf-T ^t ^frf^ ^FpT ^PT ^' ^rf^ ^.T^t wftfflT ^? ^T^ | ^Tf^ ^t ^lRl^ ?t^TT f^? f^Tff^U WPTT^T/WPT ^TT ^' ^RT <frl4c||^1 ^TRT^T ^t^TT ^PlR^ld ^t |" Thus, the contract was not complete and before confirmation of the auction ahG! deposit of the total amount as well as execution of the lease agreement, the petitioners have not acquired any legat right which can be enforced in exercise of power under Article 226 of the • Constitution of India.

23. Section of 7 of the Act, 1972 reads as under: "7. Establishment of Market Committee and its incorporation.—(1) For every market area, there shall be a Market Committee having jurisdiction over the entire market area. It (2) notification Every Market Committee shall be a body corporate by the name specified section 4. perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate restrictions as are imposed by or under this Act, be competent to contract and to acquire, hold, lease, sell or otherwise transfer any property and to do all other things necessary for the purpose of this Act: subject Provided property shall be acquired, by way of sale, immovable transferred lease or otherwise 18 without Managing Director in writing. the prior permission of (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, every Market Committee shall, for all purpose, be deemed to be a local authority." Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 7, which is mandatory, provides that no immovable property shall be acquired, transferred by way of sale, lease or otherwise without the prior permission of the Managing Director in writing. In the case on hand, prior permission for the N10 was obtained; however, the final bids were not approved by the Managing , Director. This was clarified in the circular dated

23.11.2010,also.

24. The petitioners have pleaded mildly the issue of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. It is wett settled provision of law that the plea of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation cannot be allowed to be raised, unless the factual foundation for the same is laid in the pleadings. In the pleadings, no foundation has been laid, except during the course of argument and also in the written statement filed, thereafter. (See: M/s.Mofilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others4, State of Arunanchal Pradesh v. Nezone Law House, Assam, Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others6). 4AIR 1979 SC 621 52008AIRSCW3211 6 (2011)33cc 193 19

25. In Collector, District Gwalior and Another v. Cine Exhibitors Private Limitedand Another^, the Supreme Court observed that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be soundly embedded or treated to be sacrosanct when a public authority carries out a representation or a promise which isprohibited by law or is devoid of the authority of law.

26. In order to claim the.doctrine of legitimate expectation, the petitioners have to satisfy that they have relied on the representation and the denial of expectation has worked to their detriment. (See: Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delbi Development Authority and Others8).

27. In these cases, the petitioners were declared as successful bidders, however, the same was not complete, as success of the bid was subject to approval of the Managing Director of the Vipnan Board. The petitioners have also failed to establish that cancellation of auction proceedings has worked to the detriment of the petitioners, as the petitioners have right to participate in the auction proceedings again under competitive atmosphere to offer proper market price in public interest. Thus, the ground of promissory estoppel as well as legitimate expectation fail in the facts ofthe present cases.

28. Further contention of the petitioners that once the auction has taken place and more than the minimum price has been offered, the same could not be reviewed by the superior authority, is not sustainable. It is a trite law that judicial review in case of contract is not permissible unless mala fide, arbitrariness and irregularity has been pleaded and 7 8 (2012)48cc 441 (2009)1 SCC180 20 ^^»( proved.It is a case where the Vipnan Board, a competent authority, has scrutinized the auction process and found that there was no sufficient competition, and as such, good price could not be obtained. In such circumstances, judicial review is not permissible, as the petitioners have failed to establish that the decision was not bona fide and was also not in public interest. (See: Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others9, relied on by the petitioners/ There was no colourable exercise of power or any arbitrariness, mala fide in the entire process.

29. In Rajasthan Housing Board and Another v. G.S. Investments and Another10, it was clearly obsen/ed that the Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether it should interfere with the decision ofthe authority. Discretionary power under Articte 226 of the Constitution, should be exercised with great care and caution and only in furtherance of public interest.

30. Further, in Meerut Development Authority ^v. Association of Management Studies and Another11, the Supreme Court observed as under: "28. It instrumentalities is so well settled in law and needs no restatement at our hands that disposal of the public property by the State character of a trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must transparent the interested persons to opportunity to all participate in the process. providing partakes 9 (2008)168cc 215 10 (2007)1 SCC 477 11(2009)6SCC171 s,^33-1^ ''%•'' 'v' .^:.' • \' I, '^ljp'^ %^^st.. S j 21 ^ ^te^' "!%^: ^^

29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favoritism."

31. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and from the finding of the Managing Director of the Vipnan Board, it is evident that there was no sufficient competitive price. Thus, the decision taken by the respondent authorities is just, proper and warrants no interference of this Court.

32. As a sequel, all the writ petitions being devoid of merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

33. No order asto costs. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gowri