Harmony Laminates Pvt. Ltd. vs Gujarat Indusrial Development Corpo. and Another

Hon''ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari

Rule. Mr.M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondents, waives service of notice of Rule, on behalf ofthe respondents. On the facts, and in the circumstances ofthe case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard andfinally decided.

By filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for theissuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, ordirection, to quash and set aside the communication dated25.01.2011, issued by the respondent-Gujarat IndustrialDevelopment Corporation (GIDC), and further to direct thesaid Corporation, to allot Plot No.G-1602, of Lodhika GIDCEstate, Rajkot, to the petitioner, being the highest bidderin the auction conducted for the same.

The relevant facts are that, the petitioner is aCompany, having an Industrial Unit in Plot No.G-1601, ofLodhika GIDC Industrial Estate, Rajkot. The adjoining PlotNo.G-1602, was put-up for auction by the respondent-Corporation. A public advertisement was issued for thispurpose on 28.10.2010, calling for bids from interestedparties. Bids were opened on 18.11.2010. The petitioner''sbid was for Rs.4,684/-per sq. meter, which comes to an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/-, for Plot No.C-1602. The bid ofthe petitioner was found to be the highest. However, thesaid plot was not allotted to the petitioner, as therespondent-Corporation had reserved it for the GujaratEnergy Transmission Corporation Limited ("GETCO" for short)which had made a request for allotment of this plot. Byletter dated 03.05.2011, the Executive Engineer, GETCO,informed the General Manager of the respondent-Corporationthat instead of Plot No.C-1602, GETCO would now prefer thatPlots Nos.C-1917 and C-1918 be allotted to it, as they aremore suitable, having three sides open, which is convenientfor incoming 66KV lines, and 11KV outgoing feeders. It isthe case of the petitioner that, despite the fact that theGETCO has relinquished its demand for Plot No.C-1602 andhas already been allotted Plot Nos.C-1917 and C-1918, theplot in question for which the petitioner is the highestbidder, has still not been allotted to it. It is in theabove background that the petition has been filed.

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is not denied that the petitioneris the highest bidder in the auction that took place forPlot No.C-1602. No material to the contrary has been placed on record.

It is not disputed that GETCO has now been allotted PlotNos.C-1917 and C-1918, and there is no claim on Plot No.C1602. However, in the impugned communication dated25.01.2011, it is mentioned that the bid of the petitioneris not the highest, which aspect has not been stated in theaffidavit-in-reply. A stand has been taken in Paragraph-5of the said affidavit that merely because the petitioner isthe highest bidder for Plot No.C-1602, he does not have aright, and the Corporation may consider re-auctioning inthe plot.

Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner,submits that the petitioner is the highest bidder in theauction that was specifically conducted for Plot No.C-1602,and this fact is supported by the list of bidders preparedby the respondent-Corporation itself, wherein the name ofthe petitioner appears at Sr.No.1. The bid of thepetitioner is for Rs.1,85,00,000/-, whereas the bid offeredby the next bidder is Rs.1,53,00,000/-which amount islower than that offered by the petitioner. It is contendedthat it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-Corporation to take a contrary stand in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, especially when there is no material on record in support of the same.

It is further submitted that, earlier, GETCO hadrequested to be allotted Plot No.C-1602, but now it hasrelinquished its claim, and other plots have been allottedto GETCO. There is no valid reason for not allotting PlotNo.C-1602 to the petitioner, which is ready and willing topay the entire amount of the bid offered by it within twoweeks from today as the auction that has taken place for the said plot has not been cancelled.

Mr.M.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, has submitted that in the event that the plotis re-auctioned, it is open to the petitioner toparticipate in the re-auction. By placing the highest bid,the petitioner cannot lay claim to allotment of the plot inquestion, therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respectiveparties, perused the averments made in the petition, andthe contents of the affidavit-in-reply and other documentson record.

It is stated in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, that the petitioner is not the highest bidder for Plot No.C-1602. However, a perusal of the material on record, especially the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-Corporation, belies this stand. It is categorically mentioned in Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit that:

Under the circumstances, the auction which has been cancelled and when the petitioner is already intimated, there is no question of now reviving the past auction, which has been canelled because, once the auction takes place and once it is cancelled, no claimant can have a right of auction also is subject to the final confirmation by the Head Office. Under the circumstances, merely because the plot for which he was a highest offerer for which auction was cancelled and when it is decided to have re-auction, then, no participant in the auction can ever have a vested right there in and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right and when decision is already taken to re-auction the very property and when by letter Annexure-R3 the petitioner is permitted to participate in the re-auction, then in that case, he had no right to file the present petition.

(Emphasis supplied)

From the above averments, it does appear that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the plot in the auction. Though it is averred that the auction has beencancelled, no material has been produced by the respondent-Corporation, in support of this averment. No order regarding cancellation of the auction is on record, and thelearned advocate for the respondents has not been able toanswer satisfactorily the queries of this Court regardingthe date on which the auction has been cancelled. There isno material on record to show that the auction has beencancelled. A letter dated 27.07.2011 is on record, whichhas been sent by the respondent-Corporation to thepetitioner, stating that the petitioner is at liberty toparticipate in the auction that may take place in thefuture. From the same, it appears that till date, theauction in which the petitioner has participated, has notbeen cancelled or set aside, and no fresh advertisement hasbeen issued by the respondent-Corporation, inviting bidsfor a fresh auction.

It may be noted that the auction was specificallyconducted for Plot No.C-1602. No valid reason for notallotting the plot to the petitioner, has been advanced bythe respondent-Corporation. As already stated, there is nomaterial on record to indicate that the said auction hasbeen cancelled and a fresh auction is to take place. Moreover, no defect, irregularity or breach by thepetitioner has been pointed out, necessitating the holdingof a fresh auction.

The list of bidders in the auction, appended atAnnexure-B to the petition, has been prepared by theGeneral Manager of the respondent-Corporation. It indicatesthe names of the bidders who participated in the auction,on 18.11.2010. It also states the amounts of the bidsoffered by the respective participants. It is clear fromperusal of the same, that out of four participants, thepetitioner offered a bid of Rs.1,85,00,000/-which is thehighest. The next participant offered a bid of Rs. 1,53,00,000/-. The other two participants offeredRs.81,58,000/-and Rs.82,00,000/-respectively. Theveracity of this document has not been denied by therespondent-Corporation. In light of this, the reasonscontained in the impugned communication dated 25.01.2011, that the petitioner is not the highest bidder, are notsubstantiated by any material on record and do not appearto reflect the correct factual position.

As the petitioner is the highest bidder, and nomaterial has been produced to the contrary, or to show that the auction in which it has participated has been cancelled, or that the process of re-auctioning Plot No.C1602 has taken place, the stand of the respondent-Corporation does not appear to be fair, just or proper. Novalid reason exits on record for denying allotment of PlotNo.C-1602 to the petitioner, which is the highest bidder for the same.

For the aforestated reasons, the impugned communicationdated 25.01.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider allotment of Plot No.C 1602 to the petitioner, in accordance with law, Rules andRegulations that may be applicable, in this regard. Thedecision be taken within a period of two weeks from thedate of receipt of the writ of this Court.

The petition is partly-allowed, to the above extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.