Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 WPC No.5159 of 2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.26 18:43:57 +0530 2025:CGHC:49370-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5159 of 2025 Balendra Kumar Mishra S/o Jagdish Prasad Mishra Aged About 48 Years R/o Block No. 6-B/street No. 27, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector, Durg, District Durg C.G. 4 - Tahsildar, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. 2 WPC No.5159 of 2025 5 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)/State : Shri : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.09.2025 1. The present petition. has been filed with the following prayer:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 28-07- 2025 (Annexure P-2) as well as impugned email dated 29-07- 2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for issuance of 30 years lese in favour of petitioner in respect of Block No.41, Plot No.18 situated at Mother Teresa Nagar, 3 WPC No.5159 of 2025 Residential Scheme for which the petitioner has made highest bid. 10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent authorities issued a notice on 08.08.2024 inviting tenders for grant of lease for 30 years in respect of various residential and commercial vacant plots. The petitioner, a resident of Bhilai, applied for a residential plot situated at Block No.41, Plot No.18, Mother Teresa Nagar, Bhilai, measuring 135 sq. meters. The total price of the land was fixed at ₹15,99,750/-, and the petitioner deposited the margin money of 10% i.e., ₹1,59,975/- through online mode and was allotted Tender No.157443. The live auction was held on 01.10.2024 through online procedure, in which the petitioner participated and offered the highest bid of ₹26,01,000/-. Since the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder, the auction proceedings were closed in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner was waiting for further 4 WPC No.5159 of 2025 direction from the respondent authorities to deposit the balance consideration amount. However, no communication was made to him for about ten months. On 29.07.2025, the petitioner received an email from the respondents informing him about the cancellation of his tender without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation on 06.08.2025 stating that he had made the highest bid, arranged the funds, and was awaiting instructions to deposit the balance amount, but the auction proceedings were abruptly cancelled without justification. Subsequently, on seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to know that the auction has been cancelled by order dated 28.07.2025 on the ground that the auction proceedings were not as per law, and reference was made to an earlier memo dated 23.07.2024 directing cancellation of allotment/settlement of government lands situated in city areas. The petitioner contends that despite the issuance of the said memo in July 2024, the respondents proceeded to issue notice inviting tender in August 2024, conducted the auction in October 2024, accepted his bid and margin 5 WPC No.5159 of 2025 money, and kept silent for nearly ten months, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that his bid had been accepted. The cancellation thereafter is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 as well as the impugned email dated 29.07.2025 are illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and are therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that respondent No.5, after considering the policy of the State Government, issued the notice inviting tender dated 08.08.2024, conducted the entire auction process and declared the petitioner as the highest bidder for Plot No.18, Block No.41, situated at Mother Teresa Nagar, Bhilai, and therefore respondent No.5 ought not to have cancelled the proceedings but should have allotted the plot in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the balance consideration amount, and since for nearly ten months no communication was issued rejecting his bid, it could be deemed that the respondents had accepted the bid, creating a legitimate expectation in 6 WPC No.5159 of 2025 his favour. He further submits that despite issuance of memo dated 23.07.2024, respondent No.5 went on to issue the advertisement dated 08.08.2024 and completed the auction on 01.10.2024, and therefore, having completed the process, the respondents could not have cancelled the same arbitrarily after such a long delay. He further submits that the petitioner, with the expectation of allotment, had arranged and reserved substantial funds for about ten months, thereby suffering financial loss as the same could have been invested or used for purchase of other property, and also sustained prejudice as his plan to build a residential house for his family got delayed, while the value of properties in the meantime also increased. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and would submit that as the earlier tender was floated without fixing the off-set price, in view of the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by the State Government, the Corporation has decided and resolved to cancel the earlier tender and also decided to issue fresh tender. 7 WPC No.5159 of 2025 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the submission of the respondent that as the earlier tender was floated without fixing the off-set price, in view of the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by the State Government, the Corporation has decided and resolved to cancel the earlier tender and also decided to issue fresh tender, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender process, if he so desires. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib