@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Writ Petition (C.) No.5055 of 2011 Petitioner Md. Rizwan, son of Ainul Haqh, aged about 4O years, residence of Madhurantoli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh versus Respondents 1. Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Through its Joint Director (Niyman), Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Regional Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Officer In Charge, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Writ Petition (C.) No.5056 of 2011 Petitioner Shahbaz Malik, son of Ainul Haqh, aged about 38 years, residence of Madhurantoli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh versus Respondents 1. Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Through its Joint Director (Niyman), Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Regional Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Officer In Charge, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh g7? Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of india ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25‘“ November, 201 1) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: 20 Numbers of Shendri Shops were constructed in Oid Mandi i Campus of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jashpur and were put to public auction. The petitioners were successfui bidders of two different shops. The cases of the petitioners, therefore, were processed and were sent for approval to the ofdce of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 did not approve the proposals in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the auction price/rent was very low and the same was not in the interest of Krishi Upaj Mandi. Therefore, the entire auction dated 28-6—2011 was cancelled and it was directed that a fresh auction be conducted. m7 2. Shri C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that once the bids of the petitioners were accepted by the local authority and were fon/varded to the higher authority, it should not have been cancelled by the higher’authority. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is a circular dated 23—11-2010, which relates to conditions of auction of godowns, shops and Shendri Shops etc. v/ The impugned auction was not conducted in accordance with the \ 3 terms and conditions of the circuiar and the rent was also very low, which was not in the interest of Krishi Upaj Mandi, therefore, the respondent No.1 did not approve the proposals of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and the entire auction, which was conducted on 28-6- 2011, was cancelled. Copy of the circular dated 23-11-2010 has been filed as Annexure R-1/1. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the writ petitions. /ar 5. Circular dated 23-11-2010 (Annexure R—1/1) is, in fact, guidelines for auction of godowns, shops and Shendri Shops. Relevant guidelines provided in Clause 3(El)(61) of the circular, which relate to Shendri Shops (constructed), read as under: “3(a) —W;% win (W) :— net WWI/Eur W If fai§a a1??? wahwmegafeemmmmw Wald:— (af) Wafmahw&mmfhwwahml Wmmwzsmwmwomw mWWwamiglaahWWWa WWQhWHhWWJ WWEEW WahWWWWWWW Wmmgw l" 6. lt does not appear from the records that the guidelines provided in Clause 3(H)(3f), referred to above, have been followed in this matter,and the amount relating to auction has been fixed at a low rate and in this manner, the auction was not in the interest of Krishi Upaj Mandi, as it was likely to cause hnancial loss to the Mandi. lt is for this reason, the proposal for confirmation relating to aé? auction dated 28-6-2011 was not accepted by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 cancelled the entire auction dated 28-6- 2011. A perusal of the cancellation order dated 23-7-2011 (Annexure R—1/6) would show that vide cancellation of the auction dated 28-6-2011, the concerned authority has also directed that a fresh auction be conducted as per Circular No.5671 dated 23-11— 2010 (Annexure R-1/1). 4 aM x 7. No doubt, the petitioners were the successful bidders for the respective shops, but only on action of successful bidding, they do not get an absolute right over allotment of the shop in their favour. Unless the bids offered by the petitioners were finalised by the concerned authorities according to the procedural norms of the respondents, the bids were not final and no right for fmalisation accrue in favour of the bidders. 8. ln Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies and another and other connected matter, (2009) 6 SCC 171, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the nature of rights of a bidder participating in the tender process, held as unden “What is the nature of rights of a bidder participating in the tender process? 26. A tender is an offer. lt is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his obligations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny 5 because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, a Iimited judiciai review may be available in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. 27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the abovestated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations. W, 28. It is so well settled in law and needs no restatement at our hands that disposal of the public property by the State or its instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons to participate in the process. 29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority’s action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism.” @ 9. The property of Krishi Upaj Mandi is undoubtedly a public property. ln fact, the Iocal authorities of Mandi are entrusted with the property of the Mandi and as stated by e Supreme Court, the method to be adopted for disposal of such property must be fair and transparent and everyone should get an opportunity to participate in the process of such disposal in accordance with law, but in any case, the interest of Mandi would be always an important criteria while disposal of such property of the Mandi. s 10. In case on hand, proposals processed by the local authorities of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti were not accepted because the rates were not frxed in accordance with the market rate and the same was likely to cause financial loss to the Mandi. ln absence of any allegation of mala de etc., such action of the highe authorities of the Mandi, which appears to be in the interest of Mandi, therefore, cannot be said to be bad in law. 11. ln view of the above, we do not find any substance in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions, therefore, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. a 12. A copy of this order be placed on the record of Writ Petition th fi r (C.) No.5056/201 1. Sd/— mm. KuMAB S 5d/- S Judge Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Gopal