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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more