# Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-04
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 29130 of 2014
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru, Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44327
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Contract Law - Allotment of plot -
Auction - Right of highest bidder, having
been
deposited
the
amount
of
Rs.
4,83,000/- - Auction cancelled without
giving any reason - Validity challenged -
Power to accept or reject the bid, how far
is vested with the Vice Chairman of the
Development Authority - Contract, when
can be said to be completed - Held,
Acceptance
and
confirmation
of
the
highest bid by the Auction Committee
having not been done, it cannot be said
that any right accrues to the petitioner
warranting interference by this Court to
issue a mandate to force the authority to
sell the plot in question to the petitioner
even if the price bid by him has been
found non-competative by the Authority -
Communication of acceptance of the
highest bid is necessary for concluding the
contract and it cannot be said that the
auction process has been finalised until a
contract follows it. (Para 7 and 9)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
7 All. Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365

## Text

364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant Engineer to the extent of 15%. It
appears to be a case where after about two
years of the initial work the Minister
concerned just visited the site while going
on the way and he reported the matter to
the
competent
official,
upon
which
impugned
exercise
was
undertaken.
Another Assistant Engineer and another
Junior
Engineer
engaged
with
the
petitioner were not found at fault.

15. Above mentioned facts leads to a
situation that no action against two officers has
been taken, although in different enquiries, in
relation to the same project, same site, same
length, period of the road nothing adverse by
lapse of time and for various other reasons so
stated in the enquiry officer's report dated
24.9.2004 (annexure no. 3 to rejoinder
affidavit), is found then why the petitioner alone
is to be punished. The Junior Engineer has been
exonerated on the ground that nothing wrong
on merit of charge was found. Factum of lapse
of two years, two rainy seasons have
intervened, no maintenance grant being there
and as such it is a case where same factual
premises can apply to the petitioner also. All
these aspects were stated by the petitioner in his
representation (annexure no. SA-2) but nothing
has been taken into account and the impugned
order has been passed." (emphasis supplied)

45. For the reasons stated above, it is
apparent that the Petitioner has been
discriminated in the matter of imposition of
penalty. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Petitioner is entitled to parity
quo - R.N. Singh and Dhirendra Singh
Chauhan. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 4.8.2020 passed by the Respondent
cannot be sustained.

46. The result is that the writ petition
is allowed. The impugned order dated
04.08.2020 is hereby quashed.

47. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A364
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 29130 of 2014

Surendra Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Sahu, Sri Piyush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi

A. Contract Law - Allotment of plot -
Auction - Right of highest bidder, having
been
deposited
the
amount
of
Rs.
4,83,000/- - Auction cancelled without
giving any reason - Validity challenged -
Power to accept or reject the bid, how far
is vested with the Vice Chairman of the
Development Authority - Contract, when
can be said to be completed - Held,
Acceptance
and
confirmation
of
the
highest bid by the Auction Committee
having not been done, it cannot be said
that any right accrues to the petitioner
warranting interference by this Court to
issue a mandate to force the authority to
sell the plot in question to the petitioner
even if the price bid by him has been
found non-competative by the Authority -
Communication of acceptance of the
highest bid is necessary for concluding the
contract and it cannot be said that the
auction process has been finalised until a
contract follows it. (Para 7 and 9)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
7 All. Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365
1. Laxmi Kant & ors. Vs Satyawan & ors.; 1996
SCC (4) 208
2. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ors. Vs Om
Prakash Sharma; 2013 (5) SCC 182
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the orders dated
01.02.2012 and 14.09.2012 passed by the
Vice
Chairman,
Kanpur
Development
Authority, Kanpur and for issuance of a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the
Kanpur Development Authority to allot Plot
No. 85, Govind Nagar, District Kanpur in
favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts as argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are that the Kanpur
Development Authority had published an
auction notice on 25.12.2011 in "Amar Ujala"
a daily newspaper for allotment of plots in
residential areas.

3. In pursuance of the said notice, the
petitioner deposited registration fee and
requested for allotment of plot No. L-85,
Govind Nagar, Kanpur and a proposal was
also prepared for allotment of the said plot to
the petitioner. On 01.02.2012 the Vice
Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority,
the Respondent No. 2 herein, rejected the
allotment. But the petitioner was not
informed. Unaware of the order dated
01.02.2012 that had already been passed, the
petitioner filed a writ petition No. 10424 of
2012 which was disposed of by this Court on
28.02.2012 with a direction that petitioner's
representation be considered and decided by
the Respondent No. 2.

4. The Respondent No. 2 thereafter has
rejected the representation on 14.09.2012.
This writ petition has, therefore, been filed
challenging the orders dated 01.02.2012 and
14.09.2012.

5. It has been submitted that
petitioner's bid was the highest in auction.
The auction notice dated 25.12.2011 had
fixed Rs.9,522/- per sq. fit as reserved price
of plot in question and the petitioner had
proposed Rs.11,200/- per sq. fit in his bid.
His being the highest bid, the petitioner had
also
deposited
Rs.4,83,000/-
on
12.01.2012 but by the impugned orders the
auction itself for allotment of Plot No. L85, Govind Nagar, Kanpur has been
cancelled without giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.

6. Shri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate, has
appeared
for
Kanpur
Development
Authority and he has relied upon his
counter affidavit wherein it has been
averred that in the brochure it has been
stipulated that the power to accept or reject
a bid would vest in the Vice Chairman of
the Kanpur Development Authority and his
decision would be final. After the auction
was completed the Auction Committee
while analyzing the bids had found that
two persons - Petitioner and one another
had colluded amongst themselves and both
these bidders were related to each other and
only two bids were filed for Plot No. L-85
with a difference of only Rs. 100/- per sq.
fit. No other person had bid for the Plot
No. L-85 and the two bids being found
collusive
and
non-competitive,
the
Respondent No. 2 had cancelled the auction
with respect to Plot No. L-85 and it was
proposed to re-auction the same. This
decision was duly communicated to the
petitioner by a letter dated 29.02.2012
written by Tehsildar, Kanpur Development
Authority, Zone - 3, Kanpur. Detailed
reasons have also been given by the
Respondent No. 2 while deciding the
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation of the petitioner in his order
dated 14.09.2012.

7. We have perused the impugned order
and we find that reasons have been given in
detail therein. Moreover, this Court is aware
that the rights of the highest bidders are
governed by the Statutory Rules, if any, and
the conditions of auction. The brochure
issued by the Kanpur Development Authority
had clearly stipulated that the Authority was
not bound to accept the highest bid tendered.
The Authority having reserved its right to
reject even the highest bid and also the right
to withdraw the plot itself from the auction in
spite of the highest bid, no right accrues to
the
highest
bidder.
Acceptance
and
confirmation of the highest bid by the
Auction Committee having not been done, it
cannot be said that any right accrues to the
petitioner warranting interference by this
Court to issue a mandate to force the
authority to sell the plot in question to the
petitioner even if the price bid by him has
been
found
non-competative
by
the
Authority.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Laxmi Kant and others Vs.
Satyawan and others, 1996 SCC (4) 208
has found that the conditions of auction are
mentioned in the tender document. The
bidder participating in an auction on the
basis of such conditions cannot question the
same on the ground that it was not open to
the Authorities to prescribe such conditions.
On
the
contrary,
the
principle
of
acquiescence and estopple would prevent
them from doing so. It would not be open to
a participant to the auction proceeding to
question the conditions at a later stage or as
an afterthought.

9. The aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon
again in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and others Vs. Om Prakash
Sharma: 2013 (5) SCC 182 wherein the
Supreme Court has considered several
earlier
precedents
and
come
to
the
conclusion that bidders participating in the
tender process have no other right except the
right to equal and fair treatment. No
contract comes into existence merely by
submission of the highest bid until it is
accepted. Mere deposit of 20 per cent or part
payment of the bid amount by the highest
bidder at the fall of the hammer does not
amount
to
acceptance
of
the
bid.
Communication of acceptance of the highest
bid is necessary for concluding the contract
and it cannot be said that the auction process
has been finalised until a contract follows it.

10. In view of the facts as mentioned
in the impugned order and the law settled by
Hon'ble Supreme Court we are of the
considered opinion that merely because
petitioner's bid was the highest and above
the reserved price fixed by the Respondent
No. 2, it cannot be said that any right
accrued to the petitioner to entail a
Mandamus to be issued by this Court.

11. The writ petition being devoid of
merits is dismissed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A366
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Writ- C No. 3858 of 2022

Smt. Asiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents