HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. versus ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 27-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l S.C.R. 847 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
A 
v. 
ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. I 016 of2017) 
JANUARY 27, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Auction - Tender - Rejection uf highest bid - Bid re/wing to 
co1nn1ttr1.:ial rorl'er on over nine ut.:rt1S uf lund in Gurgaon - Rejection 
of highest bid of Rs. I I I. 75 crores of a firm for the commercial tower 
by the Development Authority - Denial of formal letter of allotment 
pertaining to the property in favour of the firm - Correctness of -
Held: There was no right acquired and no vested right accrued in 
favuur of the firm merely because his bid amount was highest and 
had deposited I 0% of 1he bid amuunl - Allo1ment feller was never 
been issued to the petitioner in view of non-acceptance of the bid -
Thus, 1here was no concluded contr&ct - Jn view thereof suit for 
mandatory injunction by the firm wholly misconceived - There had 
been delegation of power by HUDA to the Administrator with respect 
to the power to accept the auction bids for commercial/residential/ 
industrial sites - The firm suppressed the said order of HUDA -
Administrator had the power to reject the bid as per the delegation 
- He had rejected the bids on sufficient ground, duly considering 
the materials on record, thus, the rejection of the bid was proper -
Huge property was saved from being plundered - Hwyana Urban 
Development Authority Act, 1977 - ss. 15(2), 51(4) - Haryana 
Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 
1978. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Merely by declaration that rejection of the bid 
by the Administrator was ilkgai, the plaintiff could not have 
become entitled to consequential relief of issuance of allotment 
letter. The suit, was not maintainable for relief sought in view of 
the faci that there was no concluded contract in the absence of 
allotment letter being issued to the plaintiff, which was a sine qu11 
11011 for filing the civil suit. [Para 13] [859-E-H] 
S47 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
848 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017} I S.C.R. 
1.2 The highest bidder has no vested right to have the 
auction concluded in his favour. The Government or its authority 
could validly retain power to accept or reject the highest bid in 
the interest of public revenue. There was no right acquired and 
no vested right accrued in favour of the plaintiff merely 'because 
his bid amount was highest and had deposited 10% of the bid 
amount. As per Regulation 6(2) of the Haryana Urban 
Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978, 
allotment letter has to be issued on acceptance of the bid by the 
Chief Administrator and within 30 days thereof, the successful 
bidder has to deposit another 15% of the bid amount. In the instant 
case, allotment letter has never been issued to the petitioner as 
per Regulation 6(2) in view of non-acceptance of the bid. Thus 
there was no concluded contract. [Para 14] [860-B-C] 
1.3 It is evident that in the absence of a concluded 
contract, i.e. in the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of 
highest bid, the suit by the plaintiff was wholly misconceived. 
The suit could not have been desfred for mandatory injunction. 
It amounted to enforcing of contract in the absence thereof. Even 
if non-acceptance of the bid was by an incompetent authority, the 
court had no power to accept the bid and to direct the allotment 
letter to be iss'ued. Merely on granting the declaration which 
was sought that rejection was illegal and arbitrary and by 
incompetent authority, further relief of mandatory injunction could 
not have been granted, on the basis of findings recorded, to issue 
the allotment letter, as it would then become necessary to forward 
the bid to competent authority-Chief Administrator-for its· 
acceptance, if at an it was required. [Para 16] [862-G-H; 863-A) 
Jitender Singh v. Haryana Urban Development 
Auth?rity High Court Of Punjab & Hmyana in CWP 
No. 12753/2010; Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas 
Parishad & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma [2013) 6 
SCR 199 : (2013) 5 SCC 182 - relied on. 
2.1 It is apparent that there had been delegation of power 
by HUDA to the Administrator with respect to the power to accept 
the auction bids for commercial/residential/industrial sites 
provided the highest bid is more than the reserve. price and 
HUDA v. ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. 
minimum of three bids have been received. The Admin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.