Civil Writ Petition No.10358 of 1991 # 1 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10358 of 1991 Date of Order: 27.07.2011 Subhash Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 15.03.1991 and the subsequent auction dated 10.06.1991. Plot No.6842/2, measuring 224 Sq. Yards was put to auction on 10.12.1990 at a reserve price of Rs.72,800/-. The petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.74,000/-. The Managing Officer forwarded the case for confirmation to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who vide order dated 15.03.1991 cancelled the auction and ordered re-fixation of the reserve price. Civil Writ Petition No.10358 of 1991 # 2 # Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order cancelling the auction is null and void as the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not assigned any reasons. Reliance is placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16905 of 1991, Subhash Chand vs. State of Haryana, decided on 30.05.2007. Counsel for the State of Haryana and counsel for respondent no.4 submit that as the plot in dispute has been re- auctioned and the Chief Settlement Commissioner has assigned cogent reasons for cancellation of the auction, the impugned order is liable to be affirmed and the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order, Annexure P-1, reveals that the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the auction by passing the following order:- “Please get the R.P.fixed”, The impugned order does not assign any reason for cancelling the auction and ordering that the reserve price should be re-fixed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was required to assign reasons, before passing the impugned order, howsoever brief, for rejecting the auction. A Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chand vs. State of Haryana (supra) while Civil Writ Petition No.10358 of 1991 # 3 # considering a similar situation, has held as follows:- 19. The State, thus, dominus status to 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. (Reg.(i) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, 1990(3) S.C.C. 752 and (ii) M/s Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. And others, 1990(3) S.C. 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 the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, without assigning any reason, is arbitrary and perverse and must, therefore, be set aside. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 15.03.1991 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to consider the same afresh, in accordance with law. In case, the bid offered by the petitioner is accepted, the re-auction conducted in favour of respondent no.4 would be rendered null and void. If, however, the bid offered by the Civil Writ Petition No.10358 of 1991 # 4 # petitioner is rejected, the bid offered by respondent no.4, in the subsequent auction, shall be put up for consideration, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. July 27, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE