HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Petition (c) No. 521 of Petitioner Versus 2. 3. Jitendra Kumar Sen, Son of Late Mohan Lai Sen, aged 35 years, resident of Teacher Colony, Tilda, Tehsil-Tilda, District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban, Administration & Development, Mantraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Ralpur (CG) The Director, Directorate of Urban Administration & Deveiopinent, Raipur (CG) Municipal Council, Tilda-Neora, District Raipur through its Chief Municipal Offieer, Municipal Council, Tilda-Neora, District Raipur (CG) Shyam Nagar Grih Nirman ShahKari Samiti, through its President, Shyam Nagar Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti, Tilda Colony, Ti!da, District Raipur (CG) Present: Shri RajeevShrivastava, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocata forthe State. ORDER (Oral) (315IJanuary,2011) PerDhirendra Mishra, J Heard on admission. The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for quashing of the Notice Inviting'Tenderdated 12 January, 2011 (Annexure P/1) and direction to respondent No. 3 to allot Plot No.46, situated in Shyam Nagar Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti, to the petifioner in pursuance of the tender proceedings dated 30th September,200S. 02. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner in response to the tender notice dated 30th September,2008 (Annexure P/4) submitted his offer for Plot No.46. The tenders were opened on 7 January, 2009 and the rate of Rs.103/- per sq.ft. offered by the petitioner was the highest. The rate offered by the petitioner was more than the market rate of Rs.90.34 per sq.ft. at the relevant time: However, no demand notice was issued lo the •petitjtingr. Respondent No.3, vide its Resoiution dated 30 Jun'e, 2'QliO;'dedded to cancel the tender process. Respondent No.2, vide his communication dated 20th September, 2010 (Annexure P/12).-asldre^<i®dto the Commissioner, sought directions in view ofthefact.thattne'Kte-received for the said plot in S'l ^ the tender process was higher than the prevailing market rate. Respondent No. 2 atso sought directions from the State Govemment in view of the memorandums received from respondent No.3 vide Annexure P/12. However, a proposa! has been forwarded for fresh auction of the plots by the State Government vide Annexure P/15. 03. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in the year 2008 was lying with the respondent - Municipal Council till the decision to conduct fresh auction was taken by the State Government. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner in the delay of two years in finalization of the tender process initiatsd vide tender notice of Annexure P/4. Since the petitioner's offer was highest and more than the prevaiiing market rate, the respondents were not justified in ordering fresh auction. HeLfurther submits that, tn any case, the subsequent tender notice of Annexure P/1 is in violation of Rule 4 of ffie Chhattisgarh Municipaiities fTransfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1996 (in short "the Rules, 1996") as the tender notice of Annexure P/1 was published in the newspaper dated 19 January, 2011 and the last date for submitting offers was 29 January, 2011 , whereas under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996, the period is not to be iess than 15 days prior to the date of auction or the last date for receipt of offers. We have heard iearned counsel for the petitioner. 05. indisputably, the petitioner'soffer being the highest was forwarded for by respondent No.2 & 3 to the State Government. However, no decision couid be taken and finally, a proposai for fresh auction was forwarded by the State Government to respondent No.3. Thus, there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent - Municipal Councii. In the absence of any concluded contract with the petitioner with respect to saie of the disputed Plot No.46, no any right accrues to the petitioner over the said plot put for auction on the groundthat his offer was highest and his case was recommended for consideration by the Municipai Council. 06. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent tender notice of Annexure P/1 is in violation 6f Rujff46Tthe Rule, 1996, is concerned, indisputabiy, the said tender notlce has been issued by the Municipal Councii on 12 January, 2011 arid the last date for ;.^^---T^ . :ii-a;.;^S^iSiiss-S&sSSSSSWS^SSS ^';f"'es:'sfe' /'^"^ \ f L^sss^ 1 t ^ia y ftt/ ^)z- submitting offers andopening of tenders has been fixed as 29 January, 2011. Ru!e4oftheRules, 1996readsas under: "4. When a transfer is to be made by a public aucfion or by inviting offers, the time, the cfefe, the place and the conditions of the auction or offer shall, not iess than 15 days pnor to #ie date of auction or last cfete for the receipt of offers, be advertised in one or more tocal news- papers and shall be wjckly macfe kncwn in the manner as determined by the Council." 07. From perusal of the above Rule, it is ciear that where transfer is to be made by public auction or by inviting offers,.the time, the date, the place and the conditions of the auction or offer, sh&uid not be less than 15 days prior to the date of auction or last date for the receipt of offers, and the notice is also to be advertised in one or more iocal newspapers and is to be widely made known, in the manner as determined bythe Council. 08. In the instant case, both the above conditions i.e. the condition of not less than 15 days prior to the date of auction or the last date of receipt of offers as also th® condition of advertising the public notice through publication in the local newspaper, stand fulfilled. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in public auction commenced vide impugned auction notice dated 12 January, 2011 (Annexure P/1), thattoo, atthe instance ofthe petitioner, who was very much aware of the date of auction and could participate in the sarne. We find no substance in this petitiQn, the same desen/es to be and is, accordingly, dismissed atthe admission staae iteelf. Sd/- tidraM Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge •?'^'.SI L-^l-i'^.s?!^!^^!