t IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(C) N0w ft /2011. T PETITIONER: ^ Alok Verma, son ofAwbito firci$<tclVerma, aged about 40 years, residence of village Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhatfisgarh. versus ^' ^y Respondent: / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya at D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. A^S^ ^y- y'\3^ \n^ ^»'"\» WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA c. J6 HIGH COD'RT OF CHHATTI^GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON fC) No. 2818 of201 1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS AlokVerma. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTnON OF INDIA • : SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agmhotri,J. Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govenmient Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 13th dayofJune, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a du'ection to quash the note sheet dated 7.4,2011 whereby, the bid ofthe petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,26,OOOA for collection of environment toll tax, was rejected on the gi'ound that in tlie preceding yeai^ the respondent No. 2/Corporation had obtained a sum of Rs. 9,11 ,OOOA in the bid process. 2. The highestj)id in the auction held on 7.4.2011 could fetch only a sum of Rs. 2,26,000/- offercd by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2/Corporation, with»itproceeding further with the execution ofthe agi'eement or any other requirement, cancelled the auction on the gi'ound that the bid amomit ofthe previous year was on a higher side and this year, the amount was much less. Therefore, it was decided to hold a second auction. 3. Sliri Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that since the security amount deposited by the petitioner has not been reflmded, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been awai'ded the contract of collection of eiivironment tax for tlie year 2011-2012 and also, that the petitioner was the liighest bidder. ^/ .^ ,Amit Contention of leamed cpunsel fbr the petitioner desen^es to be rejected on the ground that the auction was not complete as after the offer was made, the respondent authorities, having regard to the fact that in the previous year the bid amount offered was much higlier than the present year decided nbt to proceed fuilther and cancelled the whole proceedings. It is well settlcd that the authority has right not to accept the highest bid aiid even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist goodand sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid riot representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the authority's action m accepting or refusmg fhe bid must be free Irom arbifrariness or favouritism. (See: Meerut Development Aiithority v. Association cf Mcmagement Studies & Another1 and Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited & Another v. Wrest Bengal Transport In/rastructure Devehpment Corporation Limited & Others2). In the case on hand, it clearly appears that the highest bid did not represent the mai-ket price. Tlius, the action ofthe respondent No. 2/Coiporation was just and proper. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordmgly distiiissed. I Satish K. Agnihotri Judge^ 1(2009) 6 SCC171 Z(2010)6SCC303