LAAKHAN SINGH vs NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD SUKMA

1

CGHC010167072021 2026:CGHC:38587-DB

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2857 of 2021
1 - Laakhan Singh S/o Late Kallu Singh Aged About 85 Years Ex
Army Man, Presently Residing At Rajwada, Thakur Para, Sukma,
District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Nagar Palika Parishad Sukma Through Chief Municipal
Officer, Sukma , District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban
Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate
with Mr. N.P. Thakur, Adv.
For Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(01.09.2026)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This petition has been preferred for seeking direction to
quash the order dated 25.03.2021 (Annexure-P/3) and
direct the respondent No. 1 to allot/lease out shop No. 4 in
favour of the petitioner.

2
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following
factual matrix:-
2.1 Nagar Palika Parishad, Sukma (C.G.), Respondent No.
1 herein floated a tender for the allotment of shops at
Sukma (C.G.), wherein Shop No. 4 was reserved for ex-
servicemen/freedom fighters/disabled persons. The offset
price was fixed at 3,00,000/-, against which the petitioner
₹
submitted a bid of 3,21,000/-. However, the petitioner's ₹
offer was rejected vide Annexure P/3 on the ground that
other shops in the same tender received higher bids of
4,00,000/-, and therefore, the petitioner's bid could not be
₹
accepted.
3. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is an ex-
serviceman and believes in rule of law and for his livelihood
he had applied to obtain the aforesaid shop and, even, the
reasons assigned in the impugned order, whereby his bid
has been rejected, are also not justified. The petitioner's
offer was the highest valid bid received for the reserved
shop and, pursuant to Condition No.37 of the tender
notification, he acquired a legal entitlement on the
aforesaid allotment. As such, the impugned order is
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and, therefore, the
same is liable to be quashed.
4. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.

3
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
gone through the documents filed with the petition with
utmost circumspection.
6. It is evident from the documents that the shop in question
was reserved for ex-servicemen/freedom fighter/disabled
persons, and the offset price was 3,00,000/- for which the ₹
petitioner offered more than 3 lakhs i.e. 3,21,000/-. The
₹ ₹
offer of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the
ground that for other shops the price/bid has been offered
more than 4 lakhs (i.e. more than the price/bid offered by ₹
the petitioner) and, as such, the bid of the petitioner cannot
be accepted, which appears to be arbitrary and not based
on any sound reason.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golden Food
1
Products India vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others ,
has held in para 32 as under:-
“ 32 . An auction process has a sanctity attached to
it and only for valid reasons that the highest bid
can be discarded in an auction which is otherwise
held in accordance with law. If a valid bid has been
made which is above the reserve price, there should
be a rationale or reason for not accepting it.
Therefore, the decision to discard the highest bid
must have a nexus to the rationale or the reason.
Merely because the authority conducting the
auction expected a higher bid than what the
highest bidder had bid cannot be a reason to
discard the highest bid. In the instant case, no
other party had placed a bid higher than the
appellant herein. There was no infirmity in the
conduct of the auction. No other party had
complained about the process of auction conducted
1 2026 SCC Online SC 24

4
by the GDA - respondent No. 2. The bid offered by
the appellant herein was the highest and above the
reserve price. In the circumstances, the said bid
ought to have been accepted by GDA - respondent
No. 2 rather than cancelling the same without
notice to the appellant herein. Hence, the
cancellation of the bid submitted by the appellant
herein is quashed.”
8. In view of the above, since the price offered by the
petitioner exceeded the prescribed offset price of
₹ 3,00,000/-, the same ought to have been accepted by the
Respondent No. 1. The petitioner's bid could not have been
rejected merely on the ground that higher bids exceeding
₹ 4,00,000/- were received for other shops.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.03.2021
(Annexure P/3), to the extent it relates to Shop No. 4, is
hereby quashed. Considering that the petitioner's bid
exceeded the prescribed offset price, Respondent No. 1 /
Municipal Council, Sukma is directed to reconsider the
petitioner's case in accordance with law within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge Judge
H.L. Sahu