Representative Shri Gurav Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban

1. Heard Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 to 4 and Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 (contained in annexure No.1); b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to not issue a fresh auction in respect of Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, admeasuring 10,601.88 sq. meters.;"

3. Initially when the writ petition was filed, we had passed a detailed orders on 19.09.2025 regarding submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The relevant extracts of such order is being quoted hereinbelow:- "***

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition, bearing Writ- C No. 8958 of 2025, wherein this Court had passed an order on 10.09.2025 directing the respondents to file a short counter affidavit indicating the 2 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 reasons for cancellation of auction. The matter was listed on 15.09.2025 again for hearing, but in the meantime, the respondents have made available to the petitioner a communication dated 30.08.2025 saying that because one M/s Atul Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had complained that the E-Auction held on 20.08.2025 had technical glitches which resulted in non- participation of willing bidders, the Vice Chancellor had cancelled the said auction.

4. It has been submitted that the L.D.A. had engaged one agency by the name of Procure247 for conducting the E-Auction. The petitioner had communicated with Procure247 through Email on 16.09.2025 and they have informed that with reference to Auction ID No. 46538, there were no technical issues, the auction was functioning properly and was closed successfully without any errors. This communication has been filed alongwith the query as annexure-2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the L.D.A. has pointed out that the Writ Petition, bearing Writ-C No. 8958 of 2025 was filed knowing fully well that some decision had been taken by the Vice Chairman cancelling the auction, but the petitioners had not challenged such decision in the earlier writ petition knowing fully well that auction had been cancelled. They had only come with a prayer for Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to issue an allotment letter in its favour because they are the highest bidder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not pressing earlier Writ -C No. 8958 of 2025 as now a decision has been communicated through the Property Officer, Commercial regarding Vice Chairman taking some decision and the specific ground taken in the Writ Petition is of back dating of such order.

7. Let a short counter affidavit be filed by learned counsel for the LDA within four days.

8. List this case on 24.09.2025, as fresh."

4. When the matter was taken up on 07.10.2025, this Court recorded the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority in detail. The relevant extracts of such order is being quoted hereinbelow:- "***

3. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing the counsel for the petitioner states that a short counter affidavit has been filed by the L.D.A., but with regard to the ground taken for cancellation of Auction regarding website of the L.D.A. having "hanged" (inoperative) for sometime. There is no inquiry that has been held by the L.D.A. The L.D.A. has chosen to believe 3 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 the objection raised by the Atul Engineering Company one of the bidders for the property in question i.e. Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It has been submitted that the Auction Service Provider had given a certificate that there was no glitch and the auction for Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow went on smoothly from 11:00 AM to 06:30 PM on 20.08.2025. M/s Atul Engineering Company was also a participant. The petitioner's bid was the highest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Auction Notice, it is evident that the L.D.A. had warned all participants that in case there was a technical glitch on their side preventing them from participating in the auction, the L.D.A. or the Service Provider would not be responsible.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that for the same Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, six auctions had been held earlier and they were not successful, this was the seventh auction that was held. The petitioner had participated alongwith M/s Atul Engineering Company, just because the auction ended with the petitioner's bid being the highest, M/s Atul Engineer Company cannot now subsequently be allowed to raise a specious plea which is also not substantiated from the records regarding its inability to participate in the auction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. and Another (2023) 10 SCC 189 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 79 had made certain observations.

7. We deem it appropriate to quote such observations hereinbelow:- "79. Thus, mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go for another round of auction. Such a cause of action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also erode credibility of the auction process itself. That apart, post auction it is not open to the Liquidator to act on third-party communication and cancel an auction, unless it is found that fraud or collusion had vitiated the auction. The necessary corollary that follows therefrom is that there can be no absolute or unfettered discretion on the part of the Liquidator to cancel an auction which is otherwise valid. As it is in an administrative framework governed by the rule of law there can be no absolute or unfettered discretion of the Liquidator. Further, upon a thorough analysis of all the provisions concerning the Liquidator it is evident that the Liquidator is vested with a host of duties, functions and powers to oversee the liquidation process in which he is not to act in any 4 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 adversarial manner while ensuring that the auction process is carried out in accordance with law and to the benefit of all the stakeholders. Merely because the Liquidator has the discretion of carrying out multiple auction it does not necessarily imply that he would abandon or cancel a valid auction fetching a reasonable price and opt for another round of auction process with the expectation of a better price. Tribunal had rightly held that there were no objective materials before the Liquidator to cancel the auction process and to opt for another round of auction."

8. It has been submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered and followed the judgement in Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. (supra) in M/s Flavuro Food Private Limited Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr. in Special Appeal No. 790 of 2023 Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:2266-DB.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the LDA on the other hand has placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9940 of 2022, 'Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. decided on 25.11.2024 where the judgement rendered in EVA Agro (Supra) has been distinguished by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has observed that in case an auction is proposed to be held again on reasonable and cogent grounds, then highest bidder of an earlier auction, in whose favour an allotment order was issued and no vested right had been created, cannot object to such fresh auction as the development authority has a legitimate expectation of getting a higher price for the same property.

10. Having considered the judgements as cited by learned counsel for both the parties and having considered the fact that in the short counter affidavit of the L.D.A. there is an admission that the glitch occurred at the level of M/s Atul Engineering Company and not at the level of Auction Service Provider, if M/s Atul Engineering Company wants a second chance and wants to continue to make bids as an after thought by raising argument regarding its inability to participate in an auction which went on from 11:00 AM to 06:30 PM, the petitioner's bid which is almost 13 crores higher then the reserved price cannot be ignored.

11. The matter requires consideration.

12. We issue notice to the respondent no.5.

13. The petitioner shall take steps within a week both ways and file an affidavit of service including documentary evidence regarding service upon the respondent no.5.

14. List this case on 29.10.2025 at 02:15 PM for orders.

15. Till the next date of listing, no fresh auction with respect to Plot No. 1A, 5 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow shall be held."

5. On the next date of listing i.e. on 06.11.2025, Sri Vikas Singh, the respondent Advocate no.5/private respondent and prayed for time to file counter affidavit. filed his vakalatnama on behalf of

6. This Court granted time to file counter affidavit.

7. Counter affidavit was filed in the Registry this morning and has been called on the basis of oral mention made in his behalf.

8. The counter affidavit of the Lucknow Development Authority is already on record.

9. A rejoinder affidavit has been prepared by the counsel for the petitioner, which is also taken on record.

10. The arguments made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have already been noted in our earlier orders.

11. Sri Vikas Singh, who has filed his counter affidavit today has referred to paragraph-4 of his counter affidavit wherein there is a reference to Notice Inviting Tender and Clause-1 read with Clause-22 wherein it has been mentioned that the highest bidder may not automatically be entitled for allotment of plot in question. The Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority did not accept the alleged highest bid of the petitioner, before accepting such bid it was cancelled by the Vice Chairman. the plot

12. A bare perusal of Page-100 of the writ petition shows that the in question Rs.71,17,46,612/- with starting price of incremental price of Rs.20,00,000/-. The last but one bid of the petitioner was Rs.84,17,46,612/- at 18:19:37 Hours. The next highest bid of an incremental value of Rs.20,00,000/- would have been Rs.84,37,46,612/- or greater than that. The respondent no.5 lodged its bid of Rs.84,37,46,612/- before 18:30 Hours, but somehow it was registered in the computer system at 18:30:02 Hours and the portal/bid history showed that it was rejected by the system as the bidding time was over. The respondent no. 5 bid had been lodged within the time made for bidding i.e. on or before 18:30 Hours, therefore, the portal showed bid of the respondent no.5 otherwise it would not have even shown such bid if it would have been made after 18:30 hours. The respondent no.5, therefore, approached the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority on 25.08.2025 pointing out that the company had submitted a bid of Rs.84,37,46,612/- and its bid should be accepted, a copy of the bid history has been 6 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 annexed as E-2 and E-3 to the said counter affidavit.

13. The respondent no. 5, in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, has given a comparative table relating to bids made in the last few hours of the auction and the time of the bid has also been given. We find it appropriate to quote the said table in our order:- Opposite Party No. 5 Petitioner Bid Amount Time Time Bid Amount Difference S. No. (Rs.) (Rs.)

1. 84,37,46,612/- 18:30:02 10:25 18:19:37 84,17,46,612/- 00:31

2. 83,97,46,612/- 18:19:06 Not readable 83,77,46,612/- - -

3. 83,17,46,612/- 17:50:08 00:21 17:49:47 83,37,46,612/- 00:46

4. 83,17,46,612/- 17:49:01 09:40 17:39:21 82,97,46,612/- 09:44

5. 82,77,46,612/- 17:29:37 10:20 17:19:11 82,57,46,612/- 13:56

6. 82,37,46,612/- 17:05:15 05:58 16:59:17 81,97,46,612/- 09:22 7 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025

7. 81,77,46,612/- 16:49:55 00:45 16:49:10 81,57,46,612

14. It has been submitted by Sri Vikas Singh that the petitioner had made one of its bid after a gap of 13 Minutes 56 Seconds and the last bid of the respondent no.5 was after 10 minutes 25 seconds. It has been submitted on the basis of such table it is evident that the respondent no.5's bid being higher from a perusal of bidding cycle filed by the petitioner itself at pages 75 to 77 and is evident from annexure E-3 to the counter affidavit, the Vice Chairman, acted in the interest of the Lucknow Development Authority in cancelling the auction and proposing a fresh auction where there is no bar for the petitioner or the respondent no. 5 or any other bidder to participate. Such a decision would lead to better earning of revenue by the Lucknow Development Authority.

15. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out that the Vice Chairman had very few options left with him. He could have either accepted the bid of the respondent no.5 as it was higher and it was registered on the system at least on or before 18:30 hours, but the system refused to accept it because it was recorded 2 seconds later, but that would have led to injustice towards the petitioner as the petitioner would not have got an opportunity to bid higher than the bid submitted at the last moment by the respondent no.5; or he could have called both the parties to the negotiating table and left it open to the petitioner and the respondent no.5 to fight it out among themselves and then by comparing their bids, he could have taken a decision in the interest of the Lucknow Development Authority. The Vice Chairman, however, found that since the bid had been made by the respondent no.5 at 18:30 hours and it was registered in the system, he took it as a technical glitch that the bidding history recorded it 2 seconds later, and therefore, passed the order which has been impugned in this writ petition.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgements more specifically EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B and Another (aforecited) and also M/s Flavuro Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr. which had been relied upon by the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the judgement referred to by 8 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority Indore Vikas Praadhikaran & Another Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust and Another in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9940 of 2022 decided on 25.11.2024, there are several distinguishing factors and the Supreme Court has noted that the facts and circumstances of that case in particular and it led Court to distinguish observations made by the Supreme Court in EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd.(Supra).

17. We have perused the record and have also gone through the order impugned and we find from the order impugned that the respondent no.3 while communicating the decision to the Vice Chairman has given the reason of a technical glitch during bidding process on the basis of complaint made by respondent no.5 preventing it from making the bid within time. As provided in the Notice Inviting Tender and in the bidding rules, such technical glitch cannot inure to the benefit of the bidder. The decision taken by the Lucknow Development Authority is more in the nature of an attempt made on their behalf to garner more public revenue. Since the reason given in the order impugned is not made out from the records, we set aside the order impugned leaving it open for the parties to approach the Lucknow Development Authority again i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.5 and the Vice Chairman may pass a fresh order taking into account the larger public interest and possibility of garnering more public revenue. We leave it open for the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority accordance with Standard Operating Procedure adopted by it in such matters. to act strictly

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to this extent. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 20, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 to 4 and Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 (contained in annexure No.1); b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to not issue a fresh auction in respect of Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, admeasuring 10,601.88 sq. meters.;"

3. Initially when the writ petition was filed, we had passed a detailed orders on 19.09.2025 regarding submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The relevant extracts of such order is being quoted hereinbelow:- "***

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition, bearing Writ- C No. 8958 of 2025, wherein this Court had passed an order on 10.09.2025 directing the respondents to file a short counter affidavit indicating the 2 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 reasons for cancellation of auction. The matter was listed on 15.09.2025 again for hearing, but in the meantime, the respondents have made available to the petitioner a communication dated 30.08.2025 saying that because one M/s Atul Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had complained that the E-Auction held on 20.08.2025 had technical glitches which resulted in non- participation of willing bidders, the Vice Chancellor had cancelled the said auction.

4. It has been submitted that the L.D.A. had engaged one agency by the name of Procure247 for conducting the E-Auction. The petitioner had communicated with Procure247 through Email on 16.09.2025 and they have informed that with reference to Auction ID No. 46538, there were no technical issues, the auction was functioning properly and was closed successfully without any errors. This communication has been filed alongwith the query as annexure-2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the L.D.A. has pointed out that the Writ Petition, bearing Writ-C No. 8958 of 2025 was filed knowing fully well that some decision had been taken by the Vice Chairman cancelling the auction, but the petitioners had not challenged such decision in the earlier writ petition knowing fully well that auction had been cancelled. They had only come with a prayer for Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to issue an allotment letter in its favour because they are the highest bidder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not pressing earlier Writ -C No. 8958 of 2025 as now a decision has been communicated through the Property Officer, Commercial regarding Vice Chairman taking some decision and the specific ground taken in the Writ Petition is of back dating of such order.

7. Let a short counter affidavit be filed by learned counsel for the LDA within four days.

8. List this case on 24.09.2025, as fresh."

4. When the matter was taken up on 07.10.2025, this Court recorded the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority in detail. The relevant extracts of such order is being quoted hereinbelow:- "***

3. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing the counsel for the petitioner states that a short counter affidavit has been filed by the L.D.A., but with regard to the ground taken for cancellation of Auction regarding website of the L.D.A. having "hanged" (inoperative) for sometime. There is no inquiry that has been held by the L.D.A. The L.D.A. has chosen to believe 3 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 the objection raised by the Atul Engineering Company one of the bidders for the property in question i.e. Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It has been submitted that the Auction Service Provider had given a certificate that there was no glitch and the auction for Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow went on smoothly from 11:00 AM to 06:30 PM on 20.08.2025. M/s Atul Engineering Company was also a participant. The petitioner's bid was the highest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Auction Notice, it is evident that the L.D.A. had warned all participants that in case there was a technical glitch on their side preventing them from participating in the auction, the L.D.A. or the Service Provider would not be responsible.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that for the same Plot No. 1A, Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, six auctions had been held earlier and they were not successful, this was the seventh auction that was held. The petitioner had participated alongwith M/s Atul Engineering Company, just because the auction ended with the petitioner's bid being the highest, M/s Atul Engineer Company cannot now subsequently be allowed to raise a specious plea which is also not substantiated from the records regarding its inability to participate in the auction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B. and Another (2023) 10 SCC 189 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 79 had made certain observations.

7. We deem it appropriate to quote such observations hereinbelow:- "79. Thus, mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go for another round of auction. Such a cause of action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also erode credibility of the auction process itself. That apart, post auction it is not open to the Liquidator to act on third-party communication and cancel an auction, unless it is found that fraud or collusion had vitiated the auction. The necessary corollary that follows therefrom is that there can be no absolute or unfettered discretion on the part of the Liquidator to cancel an auction which is otherwise valid. As it is in an administrative framework governed by the rule of law there can be no absolute or unfettered discretion of the Liquidator. Further, upon a thorough analysis of all the provisions concerning the Liquidator it is evident that the Liquidator is vested with a host of duties, functions and powers to oversee the liquidation process in which he is not to act in any 4 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 adversarial manner while ensuring that the auction process is carried out in accordance with law and to the benefit of all the stakeholders. Merely because the Liquidator has the discretion of carrying out multiple auction it does not necessarily imply that he would abandon or cancel a valid auction fetching a reasonable price and opt for another round of auction process with the expectation of a better price. Tribunal had rightly held that there were no objective materials before the Liquidator to cancel the auction process and to opt for another round of auction."

8. It has been submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered and followed the judgement in Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. (supra) in M/s Flavuro Food Private Limited Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr. in Special Appeal No. 790 of 2023 Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:2266-DB.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the LDA on the other hand has placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9940 of 2022, 'Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. decided on 25.11.2024 where the judgement rendered in EVA Agro (Supra) has been distinguished by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has observed that in case an auction is proposed to be held again on reasonable and cogent grounds, then highest bidder of an earlier auction, in whose favour an allotment order was issued and no vested right had been created, cannot object to such fresh auction as the development authority has a legitimate expectation of getting a higher price for the same property.

10. Having considered the judgements as cited by learned counsel for both the parties and having considered the fact that in the short counter affidavit of the L.D.A. there is an admission that the glitch occurred at the level of M/s Atul Engineering Company and not at the level of Auction Service Provider, if M/s Atul Engineering Company wants a second chance and wants to continue to make bids as an after thought by raising argument regarding its inability to participate in an auction which went on from 11:00 AM to 06:30 PM, the petitioner's bid which is almost 13 crores higher then the reserved price cannot be ignored.

11. The matter requires consideration.

12. We issue notice to the respondent no.5.

13. The petitioner shall take steps within a week both ways and file an affidavit of service including documentary evidence regarding service upon the respondent no.5.

14. List this case on 29.10.2025 at 02:15 PM for orders.

15. Till the next date of listing, no fresh auction with respect to Plot No. 1A, 5 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 Group Housing Plot, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow shall be held."

5. On the next date of listing i.e. on 06.11.2025, Sri Vikas Singh, the respondent Advocate no.5/private respondent and prayed for time to file counter affidavit. filed his vakalatnama on behalf of

6. This Court granted time to file counter affidavit.

7. Counter affidavit was filed in the Registry this morning and has been called on the basis of oral mention made in his behalf.

8. The counter affidavit of the Lucknow Development Authority is already on record.

9. A rejoinder affidavit has been prepared by the counsel for the petitioner, which is also taken on record.

10. The arguments made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have already been noted in our earlier orders.

11. Sri Vikas Singh, who has filed his counter affidavit today has referred to paragraph-4 of his counter affidavit wherein there is a reference to Notice Inviting Tender and Clause-1 read with Clause-22 wherein it has been mentioned that the highest bidder may not automatically be entitled for allotment of plot in question. The Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority did not accept the alleged highest bid of the petitioner, before accepting such bid it was cancelled by the Vice Chairman. the plot

12. A bare perusal of Page-100 of the writ petition shows that the in question Rs.71,17,46,612/- with starting price of incremental price of Rs.20,00,000/-. The last but one bid of the petitioner was Rs.84,17,46,612/- at 18:19:37 Hours. The next highest bid of an incremental value of Rs.20,00,000/- would have been Rs.84,37,46,612/- or greater than that. The respondent no.5 lodged its bid of Rs.84,37,46,612/- before 18:30 Hours, but somehow it was registered in the computer system at 18:30:02 Hours and the portal/bid history showed that it was rejected by the system as the bidding time was over. The respondent no. 5 bid had been lodged within the time made for bidding i.e. on or before 18:30 Hours, therefore, the portal showed bid of the respondent no.5 otherwise it would not have even shown such bid if it would have been made after 18:30 hours. The respondent no.5, therefore, approached the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority on 25.08.2025 pointing out that the company had submitted a bid of Rs.84,37,46,612/- and its bid should be accepted, a copy of the bid history has been 6 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 annexed as E-2 and E-3 to the said counter affidavit.

13. The respondent no. 5, in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, has given a comparative table relating to bids made in the last few hours of the auction and the time of the bid has also been given. We find it appropriate to quote the said table in our order:- Opposite Party No. 5 Petitioner Bid Amount Time Time Bid Amount Difference S. No. (Rs.) (Rs.)

1. 84,37,46,612/- 18:30:02 10:25 18:19:37 84,17,46,612/- 00:31

2. 83,97,46,612/- 18:19:06 Not readable 83,77,46,612/- - -

3. 83,17,46,612/- 17:50:08 00:21 17:49:47 83,37,46,612/- 00:46

4. 83,17,46,612/- 17:49:01 09:40 17:39:21 82,97,46,612/- 09:44

5. 82,77,46,612/- 17:29:37 10:20 17:19:11 82,57,46,612/- 13:56

6. 82,37,46,612/- 17:05:15 05:58 16:59:17 81,97,46,612/- 09:22 7 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025

7. 81,77,46,612/- 16:49:55 00:45 16:49:10 81,57,46,612

14. It has been submitted by Sri Vikas Singh that the petitioner had made one of its bid after a gap of 13 Minutes 56 Seconds and the last bid of the respondent no.5 was after 10 minutes 25 seconds. It has been submitted on the basis of such table it is evident that the respondent no.5's bid being higher from a perusal of bidding cycle filed by the petitioner itself at pages 75 to 77 and is evident from annexure E-3 to the counter affidavit, the Vice Chairman, acted in the interest of the Lucknow Development Authority in cancelling the auction and proposing a fresh auction where there is no bar for the petitioner or the respondent no. 5 or any other bidder to participate. Such a decision would lead to better earning of revenue by the Lucknow Development Authority.

15. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out that the Vice Chairman had very few options left with him. He could have either accepted the bid of the respondent no.5 as it was higher and it was registered on the system at least on or before 18:30 hours, but the system refused to accept it because it was recorded 2 seconds later, but that would have led to injustice towards the petitioner as the petitioner would not have got an opportunity to bid higher than the bid submitted at the last moment by the respondent no.5; or he could have called both the parties to the negotiating table and left it open to the petitioner and the respondent no.5 to fight it out among themselves and then by comparing their bids, he could have taken a decision in the interest of the Lucknow Development Authority. The Vice Chairman, however, found that since the bid had been made by the respondent no.5 at 18:30 hours and it was registered in the system, he took it as a technical glitch that the bidding history recorded it 2 seconds later, and therefore, passed the order which has been impugned in this writ petition.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgements more specifically EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.N.B and Another (aforecited) and also M/s Flavuro Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator & Anr. which had been relied upon by the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the judgement referred to by 8 WRIC No. 9365 of 2025 the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority Indore Vikas Praadhikaran & Another Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust and Another in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9940 of 2022 decided on 25.11.2024, there are several distinguishing factors and the Supreme Court has noted that the facts and circumstances of that case in particular and it led Court to distinguish observations made by the Supreme Court in EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd.(Supra).

17. We have perused the record and have also gone through the order impugned and we find from the order impugned that the respondent no.3 while communicating the decision to the Vice Chairman has given the reason of a technical glitch during bidding process on the basis of complaint made by respondent no.5 preventing it from making the bid within time. As provided in the Notice Inviting Tender and in the bidding rules, such technical glitch cannot inure to the benefit of the bidder. The decision taken by the Lucknow Development Authority is more in the nature of an attempt made on their behalf to garner more public revenue. Since the reason given in the order impugned is not made out from the records, we set aside the order impugned leaving it open for the parties to approach the Lucknow Development Authority again i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.5 and the Vice Chairman may pass a fresh order taking into account the larger public interest and possibility of garnering more public revenue. We leave it open for the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority accordance with Standard Operating Procedure adopted by it in such matters. to act strictly

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to this extent. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 20, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench