Kiran Bhatia vs Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran And Ors

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
270
1. CWP No.18747 of 2020
th
Date of decision: September 8 , 2026
Kiran Bhatia
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
2. CWP No.19055 of 2020 (O&M)
Sorabh Tayal
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
3. CWP No.19724 of 2020
Kriti Kohli and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
4. CWP No.20057 of 2020
Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
5. CWP No.22585 of 2020
Asha Rani Nandwani
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 2
6. CWP No.8567 of 2021
Rajeev Gulati and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-18747-2020.
Mr. Pranshu Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-19055-2020.
Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Pranab Bansal and Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocates
for the petitioners in CWP-19724-2020.
Mr. Vishal Malik and Mr. Deepak Malik, Advocates
for the petitioners in CWP-20057-2020.
Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-22585-2020.
Mr. Ajay Ghangas and Ms. Inderpal Kaur, Advocates
for the petitioners in CWP-8567-2021.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Ms. Hitika Sabherwal and
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocates
for the respondents-HSVP.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present order would dispose of six writ petitions in which
common questions of law and facts arise. The said six writ petitions are
CWP No.18747 of 2020, CWP No.20057 of 2020, CWP No.22585 of 2020,
CWP No.19724 of 2020, CWP No.19055 of 2020 and CWP No.8567 of
2021. With the consent of the learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties,
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 3
CWP No.18747 of 2020 titled as Kiran Bhatia Versus Haryana Shahari
Vikas Pradhikaran and others is taken up as the lead case. The facts are
being stated from CWP-18747-2020.
2. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the Haryana
Urban Development Authority (now known as Haryana Shehri Vikas
Pradhikaran) had issued an advertisement with respect to
residential/institutional/commercial properties/building/site so as to conduct
E-auction from 05.08.2020 to 28.08.2020 in various cities in the State of
Haryana. In the said advertisement, specific reference was made to the fact
that the information (brochure) regarding sites under auction and details
about the conditions and rules are available on https://hsvphry.org.in . It is
the case of the petitioner(s) that they had downloaded the brochure
(Annexure P-2) containing the detailed terms and conditions for E-auction
which was to be conducted “on as is, where is basis”. Clauses A.1 and A.8
as well as Clauses B.15, B.16, Clauses C.28 and E.33, which are relevant for
consideration for the present cases, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“A. DEFINITIONS:-
1. Base Price: The base price of a property put to auction shall
be the current Collector rate of that area of that financial year
fixed by District Collector for that particular property including
the factor of FAR. Bids for e-auction shall start from the base
price. However, the base price is not necessarily the reserve
price of a property.
XXX XXX XXX
8. Reserve Price: The reserve price shall be decided by the
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 4
Committee constituted for the purpose. The reserve price shall
remain confidential and shall be used for evaluating the highest
bid (for accepting or rejecting a bid).
XXX XXX XXX
15. The competent authority of HSVP reserves the right to
accept or reject any bid or withdraw any or all the properties
from e-auction or cancel/postpone the e-auction, without
assigning any reason.
16. The bidding will start from the Base Price. The reserve
price shall remain confidential and shall be used for evaluating
the highest bid by the competent authority.
XXX XXX XXX
28. The Earnest Money (EMD) of the unsuccessful bidders
(except H1 of each property) will be refunded by the system
automatically on the closing of the auction. Regarding
acceptance and rejection of H1 bid competent Authority shall
take the decision within seven working days after date of e-
auction.
XXX XXX XXX
E. Allotment Letter
33. On payment of 100% amount of the bid the successful
bidder will be issued allotment letter.”
3. A perusal of the above clauses would show that the authorities
had kept the base price of the property, which was to be auctioned, as the
current collector rate of the area fixed by the District Collector and the bid
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 5
for E-auction was to start from the base price. It was specifically stated that
the base price was not necessarily the reserve price of the property in
question and under Clause A, sub-clause 8, reserve price was specifically
defined as the price which was to be decided by the committee constituted
for the said purpose and the said reserve price was to remain confidential
and was to be used for evaluating the highest bid i.e. for accepting or
rejecting a bid. It is the case of the respondent-authorities that they had kept
a base price and a reserve price so as to avoid forming of cartels or friendly
bids. Under clause 15, the competent authority had reserved the right to
accept or reject any bid or to withdraw any of the properties from E-auction
without assigning any reason. Under clause 16, it was provided that the
bidding was to start from the base price and the reserve price was to remain
confidential and the reserve price was to be used for evaluating the highest
bid by the competent authority. Under Clause 28, the earnest money of the
unsuccessful bidder was to be refunded. Under Clause 30, it was stated that
after the acceptance of the bid and verification of requisite documents, the
successful bidder was to be issued the Letter of Intent and thereafter under
Clause 33, on payment of 100% of the amount of the bid, the successful
bidder was to be issued the allotment letter. It would be relevant to note that
in none of the writ petitions, any challenge has been made to the above
clauses, which admittedly, are applicable in the present cases and admittedly
in none of the cases neither LOI was issued nor allotment letter was issued
in favour of the petitioner(s).
4. It is the case of the petitioner(s) in all the writ petitions that the
petitioner(s) had offered a bid which was higher than the base price and had
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 6
thereafter also deposited an amount of 10% of the total bid amount within
the time prescribed. In the case of Kiran Bhatia, which is the lead case
the base price was admittedly 2,47,00,200/- and the bid offered by the ₹
petitioner was 2,72,65,200/- and thus, was more than the base price. ₹
However, the said bid was admittedly lesser than the reserve price, which
the committee had assessed as 2,86,50,000/-. It is not in dispute that in all ₹
the cases, the bid offered by the petitioner(s) was less than the reserve price
and that the respondents, in view of the same, had refunded the amount
deposited by the petitioner(s) i.e. 10% of the bid amount, on 09.10.2020. It
is also not disputed that in four cases, the plots have been further sold and
the price at which they have been sold is substantially higher. The chart
showing the base price fixed in every case, bid price offered by the
petitioner, reserve price fixed by the committee which was kept confidential,
date on which the plot in question has been further sold and the price at
which it has been allotted, is reproduced hereinbelow:
Sr. No. Writ Petition
Base Price Bid Price
Offered
Reserve Price Date of
Allotment
Price of
Allotment
No.
1 18747-2020 2,47,00,200/- 2,72,65,200/- 2,86,50,000/- 26.04.2024 4,86,76,500/-
₹ ₹ ₹ ₹
2 19055-2020 2,47,00,200/- 2,73,70,200/- 2,86,50,000/- 30.09.2023 4,77,31,500/-
₹ ₹ ₹ ₹
3 19724-2020 2,47,00,200/- 2,68,90,200/- 2,86,50,000/- 24.01.2023 4,38,45,000/-
₹ ₹ ₹ ₹
4 20057-2020 ₹ 2,47,00,200/- ₹ 2,73,55,200/- ₹ 2,86,50,000/- 13.12.2022 ₹ 4,56,45,000/-
5 8567-2021 ₹ 89,07,700/- ₹ 1,25,87,700/- ₹ 1,45,00,000/- Not allotted -
6 22585-2020 ₹ 89,07,700/- ₹ 1,25,77,700/- ₹ 1,45,00,000/- Not allotted -
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the petitioner(s) in all the cases have challenged the action of the
respondent-authorities returning the bid amount primarily on two grounds.
The first ground raised by the petitioner(s) is that as per Clause 28 of the
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 7
brochure/policy, annexed as Annexure P-2 along with CWP-18747-2020,
which is the lead case, the decision regarding acceptance and rejection of the
highest bid was to be taken by the competent authority within seven working
days after the date of the E-auction and thus, a decision should have been
taken with respect to the acceptance and rejection on or before 02.09.2020,
however, the amount was refunded by the respondents on 09.10.2020 i.e.
after a period of more than one month. It is submitted that since the decision
was not taken within the time mentioned in Clause 28, thus, it would be
deemed that the respondents accepted the bid of the petitioner(s) and a
concluded contract had been entered into between the petitioner(s) and
respondent-authorities. The second ground raised on behalf of the
petitioner(s) is to the effect that no specific speaking order was passed by the
respondent-authorities while rejecting the bid of the petitioner(s) and the
amount was simply returned.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that the act of the respondent-authorities was in consonance with
the policy and since the bids by the petitioner(s) were less than the reserve
price, thus, as per the policy, the said bids could not have been accepted and
10% of the bid (earnest) money which was deposited by the petitioner(s)
was returned to the petitioner(s). It is submitted that the decision was taken
by the competent authority i.e. the Chairman, HSVP, to reject the bid vide
order dated 22.09.2020 which fact has specifically been mentioned in para 9
of the written statement filed in the lead case of Kiran Bhatia and the said
fact has not been refuted by filing any replication. It is further submitted that
the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners have been duly considered
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 8
by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mayank Dua
Versus Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran and others reported as 2022(4)
RCR (Civil) 235 and both the said arguments, which have been raised have
been rejected. It is further argued that during the pendency of CWP-18747-
2020, in pursuance of the directions dated 17.11.2020 passed by the
coordinate Bench, the Chief Administrator, HSVP, had passed a detailed
speaking order dated 21.12.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the
said speaking order has not been challenged by the said petitioner. It is
submitted that at any rate, as per the clauses of the policy, it was open to the
respondents to have rejected the case without assigning any reason and there
was no requirement of passing any speaking order, more so, when the
respondents were acting in accordance with the terms of the policy/brochure,
the contents of which were duly made known to the petitioner(s).
7. We have heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the
petitioner(s) and also the counsel for the respondents and are of the opinion
that the writ petitions are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.
8. It is undisputed that the clauses of the said brochure were
known to the petitioner(s) and no challenge was made to the said clauses
either prior to participation in the E-auction or even presently. A reading of
the said clauses clearly shows that the reserve price was required to be kept
confidential and the said reserve price was to be fixed by the committee
constituted for the said purpose and it is the said reserve price which was to
be taken into consideration for the purpose of rejection or acceptance of the
highest bid. It is not in dispute that the bid(s) made by the petitioner(s) was
less than the reserve price, which was duly assessed and fixed, and thus, all
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 9
the bids were rightly rejected. No plea regarding discrimination or any mala
fide has been raised against the respondents before this Court. The Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Mayank Dua (supra), while considering
the case of the petitioner therein under the same E-auction policy/brochure
dated 16.06.2020 and while addressing similar arguments, observed as
under:
13. In the facts of the case there is no material for us to
conclude that any contract came into force between the
petitioner and the respondent. The right of the highest bidder at
public auctions has been examined repeatedly by the Apex
Court as also this Court and the consistent view taken is that
State or the authority which can be held to be State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept
the highest bid. A reference in this regard may be made to the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trilochan Mishra
etc. v. State of Orissa (1971) 3 SCC 153: AIR (1971) 3 SC 733:
State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2 SCC 36: AIR
1972 SC 1816; Union of India v. Blum Sen Walaiti Ram (sic),
(1969) 3 SCC 146: AIR 1971 SC 2295 and State of U.P. v.
Vijay Bahadur Singh (1982) 2 S.C.C. 365. Same view was
taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narain Vs.,
State of Haryana and another (2009) 1 RCR (Civil) 556.
14. The contention raised by counsel as regards a deemed
acceptance of the highest bid and on the basis thereof a
concluded contract having come into force between the
petitioner and the respondent in the light of Clause 28 of the E-
auction policy, is not well-founded.
15. We are of the considered view that in a case of disposal
of public property, the question whether the right of a person
who has put in the highest bid in the public auction is to be
preferred over the right of the public in ensuring that valuable
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 10
public assets are not disposed of except for a fair price, public
interest ought to prevail. Undoubtedly clause 28 of the E-
auction policy obligated the acceptance or rejection of the HI1
bid by the competent authority within a period of 7 working
days from the date of e-auction. Stipulations of such nature and
the question as to whether the same are to be viewed as
mandatory or directory would depend upon the intent of the
policy maker and the object that is sought to be achieved. We
hold that such time frame stipulated in the terms and conditions
governing an e-auction was only with the objective to prevent
undue delay on the part of the competent authority in taking a
final decision. Clause 28 and the time frame of 7 days
stipulated therein cannot be permitted to be invoked to
propound a theory of a concluded contract in the realm of
disposal of public property by the State or State instrumentality
in an E-auction process. Holding otherwise would run contrary
to public interest.
16. In the facts of the present case and in the absence of any
document/material reflecting acceptance of the bid submitted
by the petitioner at the hands of the competent authority, no
concluded contract had come into being.
17. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metrol Rail
corporation Limited and another (2016) 16, SCC 818, the
Hon'ble Supreme court had held that interference in the
decision making process of the competent authority in
accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer is permissible only if
the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to
favour someone. Likewise interference in such matters would
not be warranted unless it is shown that the action of the
authority concerned is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court
could say that such action is one which no responsible authority
acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have
reached. In other words the decision making process or the
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 11
decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect
or erroneous.
18. We find that in the facts of the present case no such
ground as indicated hereinabove has been made out which
would call for interference.”
9. A perusal of the above judgment would show that it was
observed that on the basis of the material on record, it could not be said that
any concluded contract had come into force and that the period of seven
working days mentioned in Clause 28 was incorporated only with the
objective to prevent undue delay on part of the competent authority in taking
a final decision and the said clause could not be invoked to propound the
theory of a concluded contract. Further, in the present case, a closer look at
the brochure (Annexure P-2), more so, Clauses 30 and 31, would further
show that a Letter of Intent was to be issued by the respondent-authorities
and thereafter under Clause 33, allotment letter was to be issued after
payment of 100% of the amount. In the present case, it is not in dispute that
neither any Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner(s) nor the
allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner(s) and the 10% amount
deposited by them was also returned. Nothing has been shown to this Court
to even remotely suggest that a concluded contract had been arrived at
between the parties. Thus, the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment
applies on all fours to the case of the petitioner(s).
10. The argument with respect to the fact that no speaking order
was passed by the respondent-authorities while rejecting the bid of the
petitioner(s) and the 10% amount deposited was simply returned and thus,
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.18747 of 2020 and other connected cases 12
the impugned action is illegal, is also misconceived. Clause 15 of the
brochure, which has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present
judgment, would show that the competent authority had reserved its right to
reject any bid without assigning any reason. The said clause has not been
challenged by the petitioner(s). Nothing has been highlighted on behalf of
the petitioner(s), either on facts or in law, to show that in case a speaking
order is not passed while rejecting the bids in an E-auction, the action of the
respondents is required to be set aside, more so, when from the pleadings of
the parties, it is apparent that the action of the respondents is in accordance
with law. Additionally, it would be relevant to mention that as is apparent
from the chart, which has been reproduced in paragraph 4 of the present
judgment, the plots in four writ petitions have been further sold and the
amount for which they have been sold is substantially higher than the bid
given by the petitioner(s). Moreover, since the auction had taken place in the
year 2020, it could not be disputed that, even with respect to the two plots,
which have not been sold, the prices of the same have increased manifold
and thus, any interference at this stage by this Court would result in huge
loss to the State.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions being meritless, deserve to be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
th
September 8 , 2026 (DIVYA SHARMA)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.09.15 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh