'To Ensure Transparency In Allotment': Punjab & Haryana High Court Approves Auction Policy Providing Non-Disclosure Of Reserved Price

The bench comprising Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Lalit Batra held that the reserved price was not disclosed for confidential reasons and to ensure transparency process of allotment via e-auction.

As regards the basic issue of the higher bid not being accepted as it did not match the undisclosed reserved price, again we would find no reason to agree with the petitioners in view of the policy as above, to the effect that the reserved price is not disclosed for confidential reasons and to ensure transparency process of allotment via e-auction;

Court further noted that even malafides cannot be attributed to the respondents, because a counter bid was made to the petitioners to match the reserved price and therefore the petitioners cannot say that the rejection of their bids is only to favour any other person.

The court noted that it is not the case of the petitioners herein that any other person has been allotted the plots in question in the meanwhile or that any other person had been made an offer prior to the counter offer made to them.

Nonetheless, the court accepted the submission of the counsel for the respondent- HSVP that concession should be granted to the petitioner because the plot in question has not been put to any subsequent auction process.

We find that objection to be fair and therefore upon the petitioner paying the differential between the highest bid offer made by her and the reserved price fixed by the respondents (which is stated to be Rs.1,86,88,800/-), alongwith interest at the rate applied to savings bank accounts in the State Bank of India, running from the date that the counter offer was made till the date of actual payment (positively within one month from today), the plot in question would be allotted to the petitioner (in CWP-7091 of 2022), with all other terms and conditions thereof being as per the auction process.

The court concluded that the bids in all such cases were made on a base price settled by the respondent authority, which is not the reserved price. Further, the court noted that it finds nothing wrong with the policy in view of the objective to be achieved by it, especially with a counter offer to be first made to the highest bidder.

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as directed hereinabove.