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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more