Case: Haryana Urban Dev. Authority  Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers P.Ltd

by opening of the public gaze; these necessitate recording of reasons for executive actions including cases of rejection of highest offers. That very often involves large stakes and availability of reasons for actions on the record assures credibility to the action; disciplines public conduct and improves the culture of accountability. Looking for reasons in support of such action provides an opportunity for an objective review in appropriate cases both by the administrative superior and by the judicial process. The submission of Mr Dwivedi, therefore, commends itself to our acceptance, namely, that when highest offers of the type in question are rejected reasons sufficient to indicate the stand of the appropriate authority should be made available and ordinarily the same should be communicated to the concerned parties unless there be any specific justification not to do so. No doubt about it that there have to be some reasons for rejection of the bid which are adequately present in the instant case as discussed hereinabove. The decision is of no help to espouse the cause of the plaintiff. 31. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kalu Ram Ahuja & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (2008) 10 SCC 696 in which this Court has laid down that the highest bid was rejected without assigning any reason and there was no record showing that the decision was based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. In the instant case we are satisfied from the order that the reports were considered and what were the reports, has been made clear in the reply filed by the respondents which has not been controverted. In the instant case merely the bid being above the reserve price, was not a safe criteria to accept the same. 32. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 , this Court has laid down that when a statutory functionary makes an order, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. This Court has held thus : 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 : Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. There is no dispute from the aforesaid proposition. However, in the instant case reasons have been mentioned in the rejection order and the nature of reports has also been sufficiently explained. Thus the rejection of seven different bids in the auction reflects that there was due application of mind by the concerned authority and rejection could not be said to be illegal, arbitrary or sans of reason. 33. We are constrained to observe in the instant case that with respect to reserve price also, there was a hitch to fix and approve it right from the word go. It was a case of auction of big commercial tower having a huge area of 9.527 acres. Only the reserve price of the same was forwarded for fixation to the Chief Administrator, whereas the reserve prices of other properties were fixed by the Administrator. When the bids were received, the Administrator considering the huge stakes involved, forwarded the matter to the Chief Administrator. However, the Chief Administrator washed off his hands and did not decide it and sent the matter back to the Administrator, clearly indicating that the Administrator was delegated with the power to decide the bids. Thus, under compelling circumstances and duly considering the reports, the Administrator had taken the decision to reject the bids not only of the plaintiff but also six others. For the first time in the history of State of Haryana, such big properties were put to hammer on the prices indicated. The hitch in fixing the reserve price also indicates that the reserve price was not determined in a fair manner in the instant case. Not only the plaintiff but HUDA also did not place the delegation of power on record of the courts below. None of the officials of HUDA had been examined. Only an Assistant – a junior ranking person had been examined who was not posted there when the auction was held and came only in 2008. As the property was a commercial tower in Sector 29, Gurgaon, with huge commercial complex, the first appellate court was right in dismissing the suit. 34. Plaintiff came to the court for mandatory injunction, for issuance of allotment letter without payment of court fee also. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee as prevailing and the valuation of the suit should not have been less than the bid amount of Rs.111.75 crores, as rightly held by the first appellate court. The plaintiff is directed to pay the ad valorem court fee not only before the trial court but also before the High Court. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the court fee within two months from today, as payable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Firstly, we examine the question whether there being no concluded contract in the absence of acceptance of bid and issuance of allotment letter, the suit could be said to be maintainable for the declaratory relief and mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that rejection of the bid was illegal. Merely by that, plaintiff could not have become entitled for consequential mandatory injunction for issuance of formal letter of allotment. Court while exercising judicial review could not have accepted the bid. The bid had never been accepted by concerned authorities. It was not a case of cancellation of bid after being accepted. Thus even assuming as per plaintiffs case that the Administrator was not equipped with the power and the Chief Administrator had the power to accept or refuse the bid, there had been no decision by the Chief Administrator. Thus, merely by declaration that rejection of the bid by the Administrator was illegal, the plaintiff could not have become entitled to consequential relief of issuance of allotment letter. Thus the suit, in the form it was filed, was not maintainable for relief sought in view of the fact that there was no concluded contract in the absence of allotment letter being issued to the plaintiff, which was a sine qua non for filing the civil suit14. It is a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The Government or its authority could validly retain power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue. We are of the considered opinion that there was no right acquired and no vested right accrued in favour of the plaintiff merely because his bid amount was highest and had deposited 10% of the bid amount. As per Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations of 1978, allotment letter has to be issued on acceptance of the bid by the Chief Administrator and within 30 days thereof, the successful bidder has to deposit another 15% of the bid amount. In the instant case allotment letter has never been issued to the petitioner as per Regulation 6(2) in view of non-acceptance of the bid18. It is apparent that there had been delegation of power by HUDA to the Administrator with respect to the power to accept the auction bids for commercial/residential/industrial sites provided the highest bid is more than the reserve price and minimum of three bids have been received. The Administrator has also the power if the site is not sold in 3 attempts, to revise the price downwards up to a maximum of 10% of the reserve price. Thus plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed for the reasons best known to it, the aforesaid order of HUDA by which delegation of power has been made.20. Admittedly, the Presiding Officer was the Administrator, HUDA. Thus, as per the terms of the auction also, the Administrator was having the power to accept or reject the bid. That the bid was more than the reserve price and there were more than 3 bidders, is not disputed. Thus, in our opinion, the Administrator had the power to reject the bid as per the delegation made to him on 13.9.198921. The learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondent vehemently contended that there was no delegation of power under section 51(4) and it was the State Government only who could have delegated the power of the Chief Administrator as found by the High Court. As delegation had been made by HUDA under section 51(1) of the Act of 1977, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to question it and assail the same. However, the plaintiff had feigned ignorance as to delegation on its part which does not inspire confidence as the line of arguments advanced on its behalf that no delegation was there under section 51(4) was clearly grounded upon the fact that the delegation made under section 51(1) was in fact to the knowledge of the plaintiff that is why the aforesaid argument had been advanced and unfortunately learned counsel for HUDA also conceded that there was no delegation of power made by the State Government under section 51(4). This was done by overlooking the delegation dated 13.9.1989, the factum whereof has not been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in any manner whatsoever. In the absence of having questioned delegation made by HUDA under section 51(1) of the Act, plaintiff could not have succeeded in the suit22. The plaintiff has not questioned the delegation of power before the courts below in any manner whatsoever. We decline to examine the submission raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff in this Court that there is no delegation of power under section 51(4) and the power of the Chief Administrator could have been delegated only by the State Government not by HUDA under section 51(1) as per its order dated 13.9.1989. In the absence of challenge to legality of delegation order dated 13.9.1989, and the plaintiff being guilty of suppressio veri, it is not entitled to urge the aforesaid submission so as to invalidate the statutory delegation of power made by HUDA under section 51(1)23. In view of the aforesaid fact-situation, it is apparent that the Administrator had the power to reject a bid, not only being the Presiding Officer as per terms and condition N0.4 of auction but otherwise also he had the power, as discussed above. Thus, the decision of the High Court in setting aside the auction on the aforesaid ground cannot be said to be legally sustainable26. In our opinion when it is apparent from the communication that the reports were considered and what was contained in the report was very much pleaded in the written statement, mere non-production of report was not of any significance in the instant case. We are satisfied that the rejection of the bid by the Administrator was absolutely proper and justified and was beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. The Administrator had the right to reject the bids and he had rejected it on sufficient ground, duly considering the materials on record as is apparent from the communication dated 21.9.2004. In the interest of the public, revenue of the State and in the interest of HUDA the huge property was saved from being plundered33. We are constrained to observe in the instant case that with respect to reserve price also, there was a hitch to fix and approve it right from the word go. It was a case of auction of big commercial tower having a huge area of 9.527 acres. Only the reserve price of the same was forwarded for fixation to the Chief Administrator, whereas the reserve prices of other properties were fixed by the Administrator. When the bids were received, the Administrator considering the huge stakes involved, forwarded the matter to the Chief Administrator. However, the Chief Administrator washed off his hands and did not decide it and sent the matter back to the Administrator, clearly indicating that the Administrator was delegated with the power to decide the bids. Thus, under compelling circumstances and duly considering the reports, the Administrator had taken the decision to reject the bids not only of the plaintiff but also six others. For the first time in the history of State of Haryana, such big properties were put to hammer on the prices indicated. The hitch in fixing the reserve price also indicates that the reserve price was not determined in a fair manner in the instant case. Not only the plaintiff but HUDA also did not place the delegation of power on record of the courts below. None of the officials of HUDA had been examined. Only an Assistant – a junior ranking person had been examined who was not posted there when the auction was held and came only in 2008. As the property was a commercial tower in Sector 29, Gurgaon, with huge commercial complex, the first appellate court was right in dismissing the suit34. Plaintiff came to the court for mandatory injunction, for issuance of allotment letter without payment of court fee also. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee as prevailing and the valuation of the suit should not have been less than the bid amount of Rs.111.75 crores, as rightly held by the first appellate court. The plaintiff is directed to pay the ad valorem court fee not only before the trial court but also before the High Court. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the court fee within two months from today, as payable