Raman Kumar & Anr v. DDA

ORDER % 29,07.2013 The presentwrit petitionhas been filed under Article226 ofthe Constitutionseeking restorationof allotment of property No. B-32, Zafarabad ResidentialScheme, Delhi in accordancewith the auction held on 28''^March,2012. The relevantfacts of the presentcase are that in January,2012, sj the respondent-DDA advertised about sale of certain immovable propertiesin Delhion auctionbasis. In the auction,the petitionerswere the sole bidder for the aforesaid property and their bid was Rs.2,01,20,000/-i.e. onlyRs. One lacmorethanthe reserveprice. Thoughthe auctioningofficersofDDA hadrecommendedto their superiors that the petitioners' bid be accepted, yet the Principal Commissionerand the Vice-Chairmanof DDA did not accept their Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. vJ advice and on the contrary ordered that as the sole auction bid was not even five per cent higher than the reserve price, the same should not be accepted. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the file notings placed on recordby the respondent-DDAto contendthat though the Vice-Chairman, DDA had recommended the rejection of the petitioners'bid on 29* July, 2012, yet the rejection letter had been issuedby the DDA on apriordate i.e. 26* July,2012. He also refersto the noting of the Vice-Chairman,DDA to submit that the norms of a commercial bid had been erroneously applied to a residential area. On the other hand, Ms. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-DDAhas taken this Court through the file notings. She contendsthat the rejectionletterhad been issuedon 26* July, 2012 in pursuance to the notings of the Principal Commissionerand Vice-Chairman,DDA dated28* June, 2012 and 29* June, 2012 respectively. She further points out that two other similar bids receivedin the same auction had been rejected on identical grounds. Upona perusalof the Courtfile, this Courtfmds that clause-II(5) of the bid document empowers DDA to reject any bid includingthe highestbid. Clause-II(5)ofthebiddocumentreadsasunder:- "The officer conducting the auction may,for reasons to be recorded in writing and recommend to the Competent Authorityto reject any bid includingthe highest bid." A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Bikram Singh v. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, WP(C) 1699/2012 decided on 26"' March, 2012,whileinterpretinga similarcauseonsimilarfacts held as under:- D "10.Sub-clause 5 of Clause II makes it abundantly clear that the officer conducting the auction may, for reasons to be recorded in writing recommend to the Competent Authority to reject any bid including the highest bid. In the present case, the bid of the subject plot received from the petitioner and his wife was for f4,05,07,750/-, i.e., merely f 1 lac above the reserve price fixed for the plot. It is not disputed that the petitioner and his wife were the sole bidders in respect of the subject plot. The respondent/DDA invoked sub-clause 5 of Clause II ofthe Brochure to reject the said bid, being a single bid. The aforesaid right to reject the bid could have been exercised by the Competent Authority alone. Therefore, for the petitioner to state that he ought to have been informed on 18.11.2011 itself i.e., on the date ofauction, as to whether he was or was not successful in the bid, is untenable for the reason that the officer who M>as conducting the auction was not empowered to do so. He was only required to make his recommendations to the Competent Authority, which were in turn to be examined by the said Authority and a decision taken in this regard could have been communicated to the petitioner only after the date of auction. As a result, the deposit of 25% of the bid amount by the petitioner on the date of the auction could not create any vested right in his favour and such a bid was always subject to its acceptance by the Competent Authority. " In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is amply clear that the competent authority in DDA has the power and jurisdiction to reject even the highest bid. A perusal of the file including the notings made by officers after the Vice-Chairman's order clearly reveal that the Principal Commissioner and the Vice-Chairman, DDA had ordered rejection of the bids on 28^*^ June, 2012 and 29^'^ June, 2012 respectively.The date below the Vice-Chairman's note seems to have been overwritten by an officer who has subsequently made a noting and signed the same. In any ) event, one ofthe juniorofficersin pursuanceto the orderpassedby the Vice-chairmanon 29^'' June, 2012 has made anotingon July, 2012 to take legal action accordingly. Consequently, this Court is in agreementwith the learned counsel for the respondent-DDAthat the Vice-Chairmanhad passed an order on 29"" June, 2012 and not on 29^'' July, 2012 i.e. prior to the communicationof the order rejecting the petitioners' bid. This Court is furtherofthe opinionthat as in the presentcase, the single bidder was only 0.5% higher than the reserve price, the senior officers of DDA rightly rejected the petitioners' bid. Reference by seniorofficialsto the terms and conditionsofa commercialbid was only by way of analogy, illustrationand an additionalreason. However, as the respondent-DDAhad the powerand jurisdictionto rejectthe bid and as the said power in the facts of the present case had been rightly exercised,the presentwrit petitionis dismissed,but with no order as to costs. JULY 29, 2013 NG I

$- • * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM Appl.Nos. 1665,3012/2013inW.P.(C)742/2013 RAMAN KUMAR & ANR Petitioners Through:Mr. D.D. SinghwithMr. NavdeepSingh, Advocates versus DDA Respondent Through:Ms. ManikaTripathiPandeywithMr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN