JAYKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 13-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2017] ll S.C.R. 104 
JAYKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. 
THROUGH DIRECTOR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 496 of 2007) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOI AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.J 
Au<'lion: 
Public auction - Pmvisional acceptance of bid of appellant -
25% of tender amount deposired by appellant - In the meantime 
respondent approached High Court for permission for submission 
of higher bid than the appella111, without making the appellant party 
therein - High Court granted permission - Bid of respondem 
D provisionally accepted - Provisional acceptance of bid of the 
appellant, was cancelled on 07.05.2005 - Writ petitions by appellant 
challenging acceptance of bid of respondent and rejection of his 
hid - High Court dismissed the petitions - On appeal, held: Claim 
of respondent for settlement of a Govemment property by way of 
E 
F 
private largesse, without open advertisement is unfounded in law -
Belated challenge to cancellation of bid by the appellant was right(v 
rejected in view of the i111ervening developments (i.e. change in 
pennissible usage of the landji·om commercial to residential)-Since 
the ve1y substatum of the aucrion advertisement has changed, a 
fresh tender is mandatory - Direction to refund the deposited money 
to responde111 without any i11terest and to appellant with 8% interest. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s. !14(e) - presumption under - In respect of Government 
communication - Held: there shall be a presumption in law that a 
Government communication was properly made and reached the 
G addressee. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The claim of the Respondent for settlement of a 
government property by way of a private laq~cs~c, withou1 open 
advertisement, is completely unfounded in the law. Apparently, 
104 
JAYKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. THR. DIRECTOR v. STATE 
105 
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
the negotiations were done by MHADA under political influence 
A 
as evident from the letter of the Respondent dated 29.11.2004 
read with the letter dated 30.04.2005 of one Member of 
Parliament. The Respondent had not submitted any bid in 
. response to the advertisement. The order of the High Court 
dated 23.12.2004 was passed in absence of the Court being B 
apprised of the provisional acceptance of the Appellant's bid. The 
p_lea that the Respondent was never made aware of the order of 
cancellation dated 22.02.2000 merits no consideration as it was 
also revealed in the counter affidavit of the State of Maharashtra 
dated 11.07.2005 in Writ Petition No. 2112 of 2005. The 
cancellation order was addressed to MHADA and copy marked 
C 
to the Respondent. There shall be a presumption in law that il 
government communication was properly made and reached the 
addressee, under Section ll4 (e) of the. Evidence Act. It is not 
the case of the Respondent that the order never came to be Issued 
and remained in the file. The Respondent despite awareness D 
never challenged the cancellation and which sets at naught its 
entire claim. Any offer made to the Respondent in teeth of, and 
after the cancellation was therefore redundant. [Para 9)[109-B-
E] 
2. The bid of the Appellant was provisionally accepted. No 
final allotment was made in its favour under the advertisement 
dated 17.11.2004. MHADA was inhibited from proceeding further 
E 
in view of the Court order dated 23.12.2004 in favour of the 
Respondent. MHADA in its affidavit dated 24.06.2005, in Writ 
Petition No. 2112 of 2005 preferred by the Appella_nt, had 
disclosed the cancellation of the provisional acceptance by order 
F 
dated 07.05.2005. There shall likewise be a presumption with 
regard to the issuance and delivery of the same to the Appellant 
and it is not its case that no such order was ever made or issued. 
The belated challenge to the cancellation in Writ Petition No. 
867 of 2010 was therefore rightly rejected by the High Court on 
account of the intervening developments with regard to the 
G 
change in permissible usage of the land from commercial to 
residential. [Para 10][109-F-H; HO-A] 
3. The change in permissible land usage goes to the mot of 
the matter. If the very substratum of the advertisement bas 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
changed, a ftesh tender is mandatory. The passage of thirteen 
long years since the advertisement is also an important 
consideration. The Notification dated 03.07.2017 issued under 
DCR Regulation 33(5) inter alia altering the FSI is at the final 
sta

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