Asian Footwear Pvt. Ltd v. State of Haryana and Others (2024:PHHC:35641)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Decided: 12 March 2024
Bench: Arun Palliauthor
Case no.: CWP 12995/2023

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

ARUN PALLI, J.

For, learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter in issue in this bunch of 11 writ petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CWP No.12995 of 2023. The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:

�� !��!��"��#��$�� #��%��&��'��(��)*�!��*��#�� AMIT KUMAR �##��#��%��&�+�'��(��)*�!��*��+ CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -4- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB ��#��,��-��'+,� �� *��*��#��#��$�� $��#�� #��$��%�� !��!�� %� �� #�� !��.$��#��*� � � � �/0.12 3�� )�� !#�� !!�� *��*��4� 5��"�� +(6� �� $%� �� #�� !� 7-��0�� +!��'*��#!�� $%�� !!�� 7+��$��#��$��#��!�� !!�� $��%� �� %� ��%!�� #��!�$�� !��$��%*� � � � �/0.12 3�� )��!#��!!��*��*��4� 5��"��+86��$%��#��!�9+ !��7-��0��9-:�:9*�;�:�1/<7-��0��'*�'��*=*� ��$%� �� #�� $��%� !�� !��$��#��7+��$��#�� +��$%��#��/�*��#��*� � � �/0.12 3�� ##��#�� #�� #�� #�� 4�� -�� ',�� 9�� ,��'��(��)!*��#��)�� !��7+��$��#�� #�� $��$��*>�

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Corporation) issued a brochure (P-2), for allotment of various industrial sites/plots, comprised in different industrial estates, through e-auction. The e-auction AMIT KUMAR was conducted by the Corporation on 24.08.2022. Accordingly, the CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -5- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB petitioner participated in the auction for allotment of a plot, measuring 14507 square meters, situated in Sector 4-B, Bahadurgarh. And, in terms of clause B.1. of the brochure, the petitioner deposited 5% of the reserve price, as earnest money (Rs.1,23,30,950/-), and also Rs.25,000/- as processing fee. For the petitioner submitted the highest bid @ Rs.32,800/- per square meter, it was adjudged H1. A formal communication dated 06.10.2022 (P-6), acknowledging this fact, was issued to the petitioner and it was conveyed that the last date for making H1 payment shall be scheduled shortly, after conclusion of the e-auction. For the petitioner was/is always ready and willing to comply with the terms of the auction and deposit the balance consideration, it had a legitimate expectation that the Corporation would soon issue a formal letter of allotment in its favour. However, he asserts that vide communication dated 22.02.2023 (P-7), the petitioner was informed that the bid submitted by it has since been rejected and the amount deposited as earnest money would be refunded shortly. Thus, it is urged that the action of the Corporation is apparently arbitrary, unfair and unsustainable. For the competent authority neither passed any formal order before rejecting the bid submitted by the petitioner, nor, to date, it has been communicated the reasons, as to what compelled the authority to cancel the process. In this regard, he places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Star Enterprises etc. Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, 1990 (3) SCC 280, and a decision of this Court in Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 282. The records show that notice was issued and accepted on behalf of the respondents, as back as on 04.07.2023. However, to date, no response has been submitted on their behalf. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that although the authorities had recorded reasons to reject the bid submitted by the petitioner and cancel the auction, but, he concedes that no formal order in this regard was communicated to the petitioner. We had heard learned counsel for the parties at length, when during the course of hearing, they have reached a consensus: since AMIT KUMAR concededly, before rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner, despite CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -6- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB being adjudged H1, neither any formal order was passed, nor any reasons were assigned to justify the rejection of bid submitted by the petitioner and cancellation of auction, it shall be expedient if this bunch of petitions is disposed of, at this stage, to enable the respondent authorities to examine the concerns/grievances of the petitioner. And pass necessary orders, assigning reasons in support thereof. It is agreed that before any such orders are passed, the petitioners would be afforded an opportunity of hearing, as also the other stake holders. Further, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to place any fresh material/documents, if so advised, to support/substantiate its claim, provided the same are submitted within two weeks from the date of this order. And in all those cases where the authorities, despite rejection of the bids and cancellation of auction, have not yet refunded the amount deposited by the petitioner(s), the requisite amount shall be refunded, along with interest @ 5.5.% from the date they were communicated rejection of their bids till realization of the amount. For a timely decision by the competent authority would secure the mutual interest of the parties to the lis, the necessary orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of this order. However, till the formal orders, as indicated above, are passed, the site(s) in question would not be put to auction, creating any third party rights. In the wake of the position sketched out above and the consensus that has been arrived at between the parties, all these petitions are disposed of. Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law.

(ARUN PALLI)k JUDGE

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

12.03.2024 deepak/AK Sharma AMIT KUMAR Whether reportable : Yes/No

Case details

Parties and counsel

CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -1- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.12.2023 Pronounced on: 12.03.2024 1. CWP-12995-2023 Asian Footwear Private Limited …. Petitioner Vs State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 2. CWP-1546-2023 Norton Chemicals & Specialties Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 3. CWP-19305 of 2022 Neeraj Gupta and another …. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 4. CWP-19321 of 2022 Prachi Garg and another …. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 5. CWP-19345 of 2022 Ashish Rana and another …. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -2- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB 6. CWP-20782 of 2022 Gopal Nagdev @ Gopal Krishan Nagdev and Anr. …. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 7. CWP-21653 of 2022 Ritu Gupta …. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 8. CWP-22088 of 2022 Harpreet Singh …. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 9. CWP-30092 of 2022 Sanjay Gupta …. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 10. CWP-4874 of 2023 TRZ Mart Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents 11. CWP-6101 of 2023 Rishabh Katyal & Others …. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI AMIT KUMAR 2024.03.14 14:09 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL CWP-12995-2023 and other connected matters -3- 2024:PHHC:035641-DB Present: Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-12995-2023 and 4874 of 2023. Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-20782-2022. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-21653, 19305, 19321 & 22088 of 2022. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP_30092 of 2022. Mr. Rohit Chandel, Advocate and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-19345-2022. Mr. Pankaj Mahavir Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6101-2023. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-1546-2023. Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate with Ms. Vasudhra Asija, Advocate for respondents in CWP-1546-2023 Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents-HSIIDC. Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondents -HSIIDC in CWP-21653-2022

Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.