Case Note & Summary
By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in real estate in Navi Mumbai, challenged three communications issued by the respondent CIDCO dated 24 December 2021, 23 March 2022 and 27 September 2023, by which CIDCO refused to allot Plot No.27 at Sector-9, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai despite the petitioner being the highest bidder in the tender process. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing CIDCO to allot the plot at the bid rate. CIDCO is a new town development authority constituted under Section 113A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and has power under Section 118 to dispose of lands. On 9 September 2021 CIDCO published tenders for various plots in Ghansoli node. For Plot No.27 admeasuring 3212.92 sq.mts., nine bids were received and the petitioner's bid of Rs.1,42,578/- per sq.mtr. was highest. CIDCO also received a higher bid of Rs.2,12,589/- for adjacent Plot No.24, which was also submitted by the petitioner. CIDCO then directed all highest bidders in Ghansoli node to match the rate of Rs.2,12,589/- quoted for Plot No.24. The petitioner challenged this direction by filing Writ Petition No.132 of 2022, where this court on 7 January 2022 granted liberty to make a representation to the Managing Director of CIDCO. After hearing, the Managing Director by order dated 23 March 2022 recalled and cancelled the offer letter dated 24 December 2021 in respect of Plot No.27. The petitioner filed Interim Application No.2057 of 2022 and this court on 2 August 2022 gave another opportunity to approach the Managing Director. In the representation, the petitioner contended that other highest bidders, including for Plot No.26 which was allotted to Juhi Habitat at Rs.1,72,245/- per sq.mtr., were allowed to retain their bids without matching the Plot No.24 rate, and offered to match the Plot No.26 rate. By letter dated 27 September 2023 CIDCO rejected this offer, leading to the present petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that each plot has distinct characteristics and it was arbitrary to require matching of another plot's bid, that the second order admitted different characteristics yet cancelled the offer, and that the third order suffered from non-application of mind. He relied on Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager. The respondent argued that a highest bidder has no vested right to allotment, that CIDCO as landowner could cancel the tender and seek a higher price, that Plot No.26 was allotted based on expert agency's valuation, and that CIDCO planned to realign the market reservation abutting Plot No.27 which would fetch a much higher price. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder for Plot No.27, and set out the chronology including the petitioner's allotment of Plot No.24 at the higher rate. The extract provided does not include the final holding or operative directions; the judgment text ends mid-analysis. Therefore, the ultimate decision on the writ petition is not available in the provided material.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review of Tender Decisions - Scope of interference under Article 226, Constitution of India is limited to arbitrariness, malafides and unfairness - The petitioner challenged CIDCO's direction to match higher bid of Plot 24 and subsequent cancellation; the Court was considering whether State action in tender matters met the standards of fairness and reasonableness (Paras 2, 6-9, 12-13). B) Tender Law - Vested Right of Highest Bidder - A highest bidder does not have an automatic vested right to allotment - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 113A, 118 - Respondent contended CIDCO as land-owning authority can cancel tender and seek higher price; petitioner asserted that refusal to allot after being highest bidder is arbitrary; Court examined these contentions (Paras 10-13). C) Administrative Law - Discrimination in Tender Process - Equal treatment among similarly placed bidders under Article 14, Constitution of India - Petitioner argued Plot 26 was allotted at lower rate while its bid for Plot 27 was cancelled, amounting to discrimination; respondent distinguished due to expert evaluation and realignment of market reservation; issues were under consideration (Paras 7, 11, 13). D) Administrative Law - Non-application of Mind - Rejection of representation without considering offer to match lower rate - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner alleged third impugned order failed to consider its offer to match Plot 26 rate; respondent justified rejection based on higher potential after realignment; Court was analyzing (Paras 8, 11, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether CIDCO's direction requiring the highest bidder for Plot No.27 to match the higher bid received for Plot No.24 was arbitrary and an impermissible modification of tender conditions; whether cancellation of the offer by the Managing Director after admitting different characteristics was discriminatory and malafide; whether the highest bidder had a vested right to allotment; whether rejection of the petitioner's representation by letter dated 27 September 2023 suffered from non-application of mind.
Law Points
- Highest bidder has no vested right to allotment
- State instrumentalities must act fairly and without arbitrariness
- tender conditions cannot be modified after bids
- each plot has distinct characteristics
- judicial review of tender decisions limited to arbitrariness and malafides
- land-owning authority can seek higher price
- discrimination among bidders impermissible
- non-application of mind in rejecting representation unlawful
