TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fresh auction which was conducted on 30.5.2018 was higher only by ₹ 90 Lakhs than that made by the Petitioner. On instructions he submits that the Petitioner is ready to match that bid. However, this option he ought to have exercised by participating in auction held on 30.5.2018 bearing in mind that on 23.5.2018 the Court had specifically permitted the Petitioner to bid at the auction which was held on 30.5.2018. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned letter dated 4.8.2018 cancelling auction held on 22nd September, 2017 or in holding of the fresh auction consequent to notice dated 12.5.2018. - Writ Petition No. 1598 Of 2018 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Rohan Cama with Mr. Vishal Maheshwari with Mr. Harish Adwant I/by V.M.Legal, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani with Mr. Kunal Kanani I/by IC Legal, Advocates for Respondent No.4. P.C: This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges: (a) the cancellation letter dated 4.5.2018 of the auction sale on 22nd September, 2017 of the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 30 Crores. On 21st September, 2017, the Petitioner submitted its bid at ₹ 30.20 Crores along with earnest money deposit of ₹ 7.5 Crores and caution money of ₹ 5 Lakhs by way of Demand Draft along with the other documents. On 22.9.2017 the bids were to be opened and on that day it was found that the Petitioner was the only bidder offering price of ₹ 30.21 Crores i.e. above the reserve price of ₹ 30 Crores. (c) Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not accept the bid. This was for the reason that the Petitioner had itself offered ₹ 32.11 Crores in respect of the said property prior to holding of the auction. In the above context as it's practice, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 prepared a report dated 26.9.2017 on above auction and the earlier offer by the Petitioner while seeking clarification/direction from CBDT for further action. (d) In response, the CBDT by its letters dated 20.11.2017 directed Respondent to keep the proceedings of auction in respect of the said property in abeyance till fresh valuation of it is done and the report is examined by the CBDT. On the same date, the CBDT directed Chief Engine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .4 to this Petition. 10. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present facts is that the impugned letter is arbitrary as there is no reason warranting the issue of letter dated 4.5.2018 cancelling the auction held on 22.9.2017 at which the Petitioner was the highest bidder. It is also submitted that the reasons as set out in the additional affidavit-in-reply dated 3.7.2018 filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are are not sufficient to justify cancellation of licence. In support of his contention, Mr. Cama the learned counsel appearing in support of the Petition invited our attention to M/s. Star Enterprise Ors. v. CIDCO (1990) 3 SCC 280, Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 , Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari Batra (2010) 9 SCC 486 and Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority ILR (2006) II Delhi 1360. 11. We have set out the events leading to this Petition on consideration of both the Petition and the additional affidavit in reply for and on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. We note that the invitation to make bids issued by the Respondent No.2 issued in September, 2017 in its invitation to offer itself provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached' ; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226 . 12. In the present facts, we find that additional affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
