Supreme Court: Benefit of Section 436A CrPC Extends Even to Accused Under PMLA  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Order Confiscation of Vehicle Without Hearing its Registered Owner  ||  Allahabad High Court: Taunting a Person for Giving Less Dowry Not a Penal Offence  ||  All. HC: Collector Being Quasi-Judicial Authority Has No Statutory Power to Review/Recall Order  ||  All HC: High Court Appointing Arbitrator has Power to Extend Arbitrator's Mandate u/s 29A of A&C Act  ||  SC: Centre Recommended to Frame Comprehensive Sentencing Policy  ||  Supreme Court: Court Which Granted Bail Can Cancel it if Serious Allegations Made  ||  Supreme Court: SEZ Developers Must Apply for Recognition and be Scrutinized  ||  SC: Comments to be Made Within Public View to Punish Person for Casteist Insults Under SC/ ST Act  ||  P&H HC: Bail Petition Rejected of Travel Agent Accused of Defrauding a Man for Processing Visa    

Ashu Deep Kohli Vs. State of J&K and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (22 Feb 2021)

Right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government until the confirmation letter is issued

MANU/JK/0052/2021

Civil

In present petition, the Petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to finalize the auction of Shop with respect to which auction notice was issued by the Respondent No. 2. With further writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the Petitioner with respect to the Shop being only the highest bidder participated and submitted the bid pursuant to the Notification issued by Respondent No. 2 on 15th July, 2014 for leasing out the shop.

The question raised in present case is whether any indefeasible right vested unto the Petitioner upon responding to the Notification issued by the respondent-Board qua the allotment of shop in question and non-finalization of the process of bidding by the Respondents upon finding the Petitioner to be lone bidder for the shop in question, on the fundamental principle of public policy and violated any right of the Petitioner.

The disposal of the public property by the State or its instrumentalities partake the character of a trust. The method to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent as also to protect the financial interest of the State, as the government being the guardian of the finances of the State.

The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the government and even if a public auction had been completed and a person found to be highest bidder, no right accrued to the highest bidder till the confirmation letter is issued to him.

In the instant petition for the allotment of the shop in question, the respondents seemingly have found it reasonable and fair not to proceed with the process of bidding with only one responsive bid. The said process manifestly, has been followed in order to generate a healthy competition and ultimately good revenue for the respondent-organization. No indefeasible right thus qua the shop in question would be said to have accrued to the petitioner, as also keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner having withheld the information from this Court that 15% of the bid amount registration amount stands remitted back to the Petitioner, as, another shop allotted to him.

Viewed thus, no interference is found to be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petition thus entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Tags : AUCTION   ALLOTMENT   SHOP  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved