Civil Writ Petition No.4896 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4896 of 2010 Date of Order: 02.09.2011 Shakuntla Devi ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority. Panchkula and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 06.07.2005, Annexure P-3, passed by the Senior Accounts Officer, H.F.O.A.S (Finance Department), HUDA, Hisar, communicating the decision of the Administrator, whereby all other bids, except the bid offered by the petitioner with respect to SCF-32, Sirsa, i.e. the plot in dispute, have been accepted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any reason for rejecting the bid offered by the petitioner, the order dated 06.07.2005, refusing to approve the bid offered by the petitioner, is a nullity. Reliance for this argument is placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as AIR 2007 Civil Writ Petition No.4896 of 2010 -2- Punjab & Haryana, 167, titled as Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.05.2007. Counsel for the Haryana Urban Development Authority submits that the approval was declined as the petitioner's bid for a corner plot was less than the bid offered for the other plots. It is further submitted that while passing a purely administrative order, the Administrator is not required to assign reasons for approving or rejecting a bid. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order dated 06.07.2005, reads as follows:- “As explained and recommended by you vide your 17.6.2006 office letter under reference approval is hereby accorded for the highest bids recovered in the auction dated 7.6.2005 except SCF No.32, Sector 20-P-II Sirsa subject to financial regulations as per list attached.” By way of the order all other bids except the bid offered by the petitioner, have been accepted but no reason has been assigned for rejecting the bid offered by the petitioner. While considering a similar controversy, a Full Bench of this Court held in Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and others(supra) as follows:- “19. The State thus has no dominus status to Civil Writ Petition No.4896 of 2010 -3- dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into a contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with the rule of law (Ref: (i) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, (1990) 3 SCC 752: (AIR 1990 SC 1031) and (ii) M/s Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.(1990) 3 SCC 280). As a necessary corollary thereto, it is held that the State Government cannot refuse to confirm the highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons.” It is, therefore, apparent that while declining approval or rejecting a bid, the authority concerned is required to record reasons, howsoever brief. The right of an aggrieved party, to be informed of reasons for rejection of his bid, is the bare minimum expected of a fair and transparent system of administration. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 06.07.2005, Annexure P-3 is set aside in sofar as it relates to the petitioner and the matter is remitted to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to decide the matter with respect to approval of bid offered by the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Civil Writ Petition No.4896 of 2010 -4- It is made clear that this order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits. September 02, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE