LexGOLDEN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 47 : 2026 INSC 22 Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Civil Appeal No(s). 56-57 of 2026) 06 January 2026 [B.V. Nagarathna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had bid, whether it can be a reason to discard the highest bid. Headnotes† Auction – Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA)-respondent no.2 herein had advertised the allotment of various plots through an auction – On 15.03.2024, an open auction was conducted in which the reserve price of the subject plot was fixed at Rs.25,600/- per sq. mtr. – The appellant submitted a bid of Rs.29,500/- per sq. mtr., which was the highest, and was thus declared the highest bidder – However, later respondent found that the GDA–respondent no.2 had cancelled the allotment – Thereafter, on 22.05.2024, the GDA-respondent no.2 officially notified the appellant that they had cancelled their financial bid and announced that a fresh auction would take place for the plot – Since it noticed that “similar properties” in the same scheme had received substantially higher prices than offered by the appellant – Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed – The High Court held that the appellant cannot claim an “indefeasible right” to insist upon the execution of a sale deed in its favour – Later, appellant filed another writ petition, which was also dismissed – Correctness: Held: An auction process has a sanctity attached to it and only for valid reasons that the highest bid can be discarded in an auction which is otherwise held in accordance with law – If a valid bid has been made which is above the reserve price, there should be a rationale or reason for not accepting it – Therefore, the decision to discard the highest bid must have a nexus to the rationale or the reason – Merely because the authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had bid cannot * Author 48 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports be a reason to discard the highest bid – In the instant case, no other party had placed a bid higher than the appellant herein – There was no infirmity in the conduct of the auction – No other party had complained about the process of auction conducted by the GDA-respondent no.2 – The bid offered by the appellant herein was the highest and above the reserve price – In the circumstances, the said bid ought to have been accepted by GDA- respondent no.2 rather than cancelling the same without notice to the appellant herein – Hence, the cancellation of the bid submitted by the appellant herein is quashed – The impugned orders of the High Court dated 24.05.2024 and 15.07.2024 passed in the respective writ petitions are set-aside – The appellant is directed to re-deposit the earnest money – After the re-deposit of the earnest money, the GDA-respondent no.2 shall make an order of allotment of the subject plot in favour of the appellant herein and take all consequential steps for concluding the auction process in favour of the appellant herein. [Para 33] Case Law Cited Eva Agro Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank [2023] 13 SCR 861 : (2023) 10 SCC 189; Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking [2023] 6 SCR 695 : (2023) 19 SCC 1; K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya & Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple [2022] 8 SCR 968 : (2022) 5 SCC 710; Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. [2017] 1 SCR 847 : (2017) 4 SCC 243; Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 868 : (2007) 1 SCC 477; State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal [1972] 3 SCR 784 : (1972) 2 SCC 36; Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma [2013] 6 SCR 199 : (2013) 5 SCC 182; Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies [2009] 6 SCR 663 : (2009) 6 SCC 171; Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3511; M.P. Power Management Company Limited v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (Private) Limited [2022] 5 SCR 1 : (2023) 2 SCC 703; Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd. [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 354 : (2006) 13 SCC 382; Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority [2024] 7 SCR 532 : (2024) 15 SCC 461 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. [2026] 2 S.C.R. 49 Golden Food
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.