Skip to main content

In a case of disposal of public property, public interest ought to prevail

In Mayank Dua v. Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran and others, writ petition was filed before the High Court Of Punjab And Haryana by the Applicant in pursuance to an auction process that had been initiated by the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, wherein the Applicant was adjudged to the be the highest bidder.

Among the objections raised by the Applicant was that in the auction only base price for the commercial sites had been indicated whereas reserve price had been kept confidential. The Applicant claimed that non-disclosing of the reserve price, is against public interest and public policy amounting to lack of transparency in the auction process. It is contended that non-disclosure of the reserve price would also amount to an unfair practice.

The court observed that apparently the bid of the petitioner having been evaluated by the Committee that was constituted for the purpose has not accepted the same keeping in view the reserve price that may have been determined. Resultantly the ernest money stood credited back into the saving bank account of the petitioner.

The HC held that the right of the highest bidder at public auctions has been examined repeatedly by the Apex Court as also this Court and the consistent view taken is that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest bid. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Trilochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa (1971) 3 SCC 153 : AIR (1971) 3 SC 733: State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2 SCC 36 : AIR 1972 SC 1816 ; Union of India v. Blum Sen Walaiti Ram (sic), (1969) 3 SCC 146 : AIR 1971 SC 2295 and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh (1982) 2 S.C.C. 365. Same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narain Vs., State of Haryana and another (2009) 1 RCR (Civil ) 556. 

The HC ruled that we are of the considered view that in a case of disposal of public property, the question whether the right of a person who has put in the highest bid in the public auction is to be preferred over the right of the public in ensuring that valuable public assets are not disposed of except for a fair price, public interest ought to prevail.

Comments

  1. Dubs20 December 2021 at 08:27

    The question still remains... is the reserve price to be transparently communicated in the bid socument or not?
    Dev Bhattacharya

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more