Amit Kumar vs Ghaziabad Development Authority (Gda) And 2 Others

A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on 08.10.2026
Judgment delivered on 03.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – C No. - 44444 of 2025
Amit Kumar …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
…..Respondents(s)
Ghaziabad Development
Authority (Gda) And 2
Others
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Anuj Srivastava, Pranshu Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra
Court No. - 29
HON’BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON’BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
(Per : Hon’ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for
Ghaziabad Development Authority are present.
2. The Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as
(“the Authority” for brevity) advertised in daily newspapers regarding
auction of various commercial/ residential plots, educational institution
plots and nursing home plots on 15.10.2025. Amongst various plots
advertised for auction, one of the plots was Plot No. A-252, area 67.60
sq. mtrs approx., situated in Block-A, Kaushambi Yojana, Ghaziabad.

2
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
3. In the auction held on 15.10.2025 for the said plot, the minimum
reserve price as per the brochure was 93,000/- per sq. mtrs. and along
₹
with the petitioner, two other bidders participated in the said auction. The
petitioner bid an amount of 1,11,000/- per sq. mtrs. which was accepted
₹
to be the highest bid and the petitioner, in pursuance of his bid being the
highest bid, also signed the bid sheet on 15.10.2025. Thereafter, as per
Clause 5(iii), the petitioner waited for the allotment letter which was to be
sent to the successful applicant by means of e-mail/ registered post. When
the said e-mail/ registered post was not forthcoming, the petitioner e-
mailed to the respondent Authority on 23.10.2025 with a specific prayer
to issue an allotment letter of the said plot and it was further stated that
the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the bid amount as per the terms and
conditions of the allotment letter.
4. The petitioner also addressed a formal letter to the Vice Chairman,
Ghaziabad Development Authority (“respondent no. 1” for brevity) on
25.10.2025 again requesting to issue the allotment letter in terms of the
concluded auction and his willingness to pay 25% of the amount as per
the terms and conditions of the bid document.
5. On 27.10.2025, the petitioner received an e-mail from the
Authority addressed to the petitioner enclosing therein a rejection note of
the highest bid of the petitioner. The attachment along with the e-mail
merely stated as follows:
A-252 1,11,000/-
“अवगत कराना है कि भूखंड कौशांबी के सापेक्ष प्राप्त उच्चतम बोली ₹
15-10-2025
दिनांक आस्वीकार है। नीलामी निरस्त की गई है। रिफंड हेतु बैंक को सूचित कर
दिया गया है।”
6. Upon being informed that the bid was rejected, the petitioner e-
mailed to the Authority as well as helpline center of the Authority on
28.10.2025 requesting the official copy of the cancellation order issued by
the Authority in respect of the said plot. However, no reply was
forthcoming on the said e-mail, but the petitioner was told that the bid of

3
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Authority was expecting
a higher bid and, therefore, the bid was cancelled.
7. After the cancellation of the bid, the respondent Authority issued a
fresh auction notice on 02.12.2025 including therein the Plot No. A-252
which had been cancelled by the Authority by means of communication
dated 27.10.2025.
8. As the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of the highest bid,
the present petition came to be filed on 11.12.2025 and when the matter
was taken up on 17.12.2025, learned counsel representing the Authority
sought time to seek instructions in the matter. Thereafter, when the matter
ultimately came up on 07.09.2026, the Court directed for production of
original records of the proceedings relating to cancellation of the
petitioner's bid for Plot No. A-252 and in pursuance thereof, the original
records pertaining to the cancelled auction as well as the fresh auction
conducted by the Authority were produced and retained by the Court.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made the following
submissions in respect of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition:
(i) The cancellation order is illegal and arbitrary, as the petitioner
being the highest bidder in the auction proceedings was entitled for
issuance of allotment letter.
(ii) The cancellation order, which was communicated to the petitioner,
did not state any reasons except the fact that the bid of the petitioner was
cancelled. However, the petitioner was orally intimated that the bid was
cancelled on the ground that the Authority was expecting a higher bid than
the price fetched in the auction.
(iii) The mere expectancy of a higher bid cannot be a ground for
cancelling the concluded auction. Mere fact that the plot could have

4
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
fetched a higher price in future is not a ground available to cancel the
concluded auction proceedings unless and until it is hit by fraud, collusion,
suppression of material fact etc. which would taint the entire auction
proceeding and vitiate the entire auction. To buttress his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Supreme
Court judgment passed in Golden Foods Products India Vs. State of U.P.
1
and others . Once the highest bid was accepted in the auction proceeding
which was conducted in a physical manner by fall of hammer, then on the
fall of hammer the highest bid by the petitioner stood accepted and the
auction stood concluded. No further requirement of any confirmation was
needed and the only requirement left was the formalities to be completed
regarding payment.
(iv) The entire action done by the Authority is a colourable exercise of
power which is perverse in law because once a public authority conducted
a valid competitive process and received the highest bid, rejection of that
bid had to rest upon material rationally demonstrating why the offer was
unacceptable. What required examination was whether the reason for
rejecting the highest bid was a lawful and sufficient reason.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 3:
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Authority has made the
following submissions to refute the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner :
(i) The auction proceeding did not stand concluded on the fall of the
hammer, as Clause (xi) of the bid document specifically states as follows:
(xi)
नीलामी समिति की सस्तुतियों को मानने या
(xi) The full authority/final decision
to accept or not accept the
न मानने तथा बोलीदाताओं की बोली को
recommendations of the auction
स्वीकार करने अथवा न करने का पूर्ण
committee and to accept or not
/ ,
अधिकार अन्ति म निर्णय उपाध्यक्ष गाजियाबाद
accept the bidder's bid will be of the
विकास प्राधिकरण का होगा। उपाध्यक्ष के
Vice Chairman Ghaziabad
निर्णय पर किसी भी बोलीदाता को आपत्ति का
Development Authority. No bidder
1 2026 INSC 22

5
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
will have the right to object to the
अधिकार नहीं होगा।
decision of the Vice-Chairman.
Once the bid document reserves the right of confirmation upon the Vice
Chaiman/ Auction Committee, then mere falling of hammer would not
mean that the auction stood concluded in favour of the petitioner.
(ii) The auction is done to fetch the highest possible price. Therefore,
when in an earlier auction for the same plot, bid price of 1,95,000/- per
₹
sq. mtrs. was rejected, then the present price of 1,11,000/- per sq. mtrs.
₹
cannot be accepted, as in an earlier auction the price received was much
higher which was not accepted by the Authority.
(iii) Mere acceptance of a bid in an auction would not give any rights
to the petitioner as unless and until the auction is confirmed, no rights
would flow in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) The subsequent auction that took place on 29.12.2025 fetched the
highest bid of 2,06,000/- per sq. mtrs. which was confirmed by the
₹
Auction Committee. Without impleading the highest bidder as approved
by the Auction Committee, the writ petition is not maintainable and as
such is liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent 2 has adopted
the same reasoning as advanced by learned counsel for the Development
Authority. It is next submitted that the impugned cancellation order suffers
from no illegality and as such, no interference is required.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:
12. In light of the rival submissions, following points of determination
are framed to adjudicate the issue in hand:
(i) Whether the cancellation intimation dated 27.10.2025 amounts to
colourable exercise of power in as much as it does not state the
reason for cancellation of the highest bid?

6
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
(ii) Whether the justification given by the Authority in cancelling the
bid, i.e. expectation of a higher bid in future auctions, is justified?
(iii) Whether non-impleadment of the highest bidder in the auction
conducted on 29.12.2025 would render the present writ petition
liable to be dismissed?
(iv) What relief can be granted if the answer to Question No. 1 is in
the affirmative?
DISCUSSIONS:
13. Before this Court considers the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties, it is necessary to examine the records
produced by the Authority in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court
dated 07.09.2026.
14. An examination of the record reveals a rather startling situation. In
respect of the said plot, the first advertisement issued was in pursuance of
a decision taken by the respondent no.1 on 09.07.2025 directing for
holding of auction of Plot No. A-252 amongst various other plots on
30.07.2025. In pursuance of the said advertisement, an auction took place
on 30.07.2025 in which 12 other individuals participated. The reserved
price of the plot was 93,000/- per sq. mtrs. and the highest price that was
₹
received for the said plot was 1,95,000/- per sq. mtrs. However, the
₹
auction held on 30.07.2025 was not approved by the Authority on the
ground that since the plot has been put for auction for the first time,
therefore, in future the said plot may be auctioned for a higher price.
Accordingly, the plot was again put for auction. Resolution No. 122 of the
Auction Committee dated 02.08.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“122. कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( क्षेत्रफल
67.60 वर्ग मीटर लगभग )
कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( आरक्षित दर ₹
93,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर ) की नीलामी हेतु बारह बोलीदाताओं द्वारा प्रतिभाग किया गया , जिसका
विवरण निम्नवत् है :–

7
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
क्र 0
बोलीदाता का
आरक्षित दर
आवेदन पत्र संख्या
नाम (₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
बोली में प्राप्त दर
सं 0
(₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
1. मनोज कुमार 13 93,000.00 1,94,000.00
मेट्रो इंडिया
2. 23 93,000.00 95,000.00
लिमिटेड
3. हेमन्त गुप्ता 27 93,000.00 1,60,000.00
4. संजय अग्रवाल 57 93,000.00 1,61,000.00
5. कुनाल गर्ग 102 93,000.00 1,65,000.00
श्याम माधव
6. 114 93,000.00 1,95,000.00
यदुवंशी
7. मंजीत सिंह 166 93,000.00 बोली देने से इंकार
8. हरप्रीत सिंह 169 93,000.00 1,81,000.00
प्रगति गोयल
एवं नितिन
गोयल
9.
200 93,000.00 1,83,000.00
10. अनिशा गुप्ता 214 93,000.00 बोली देने से इंकार
11. सुमित सिंह 261 93,000.00 बोली देने से इंकार
फॉर्च्यून ग्रैंड
मैनेजमेंट
प्रा 0 लि 0
265 93,000.00 बोली देने से इंकार
12.
(as extracted from the original records)
15. The plot was once again put for auction amongst other plots by
means of approval granted by the respondent Authority on 12.08.2025 in
which the auction was to be held on 11.09.2025 for Plot No. A-252. Four
bidders participated in the said auction. The reserved price of the plot
remained the same, i.e. 93,000/- per sq. mtrs. and the highest bid that
₹
was received was 1,56,000/- per sq. mtrs. However, the highest bid was
₹
also cancelled on the ground that in the earlier round of auction held on
30.07.2025, the maximum bidding price was 1,95,000/- and as the
₹
current bid price was lower than the earlier bid price of 1,95,000/-,
₹
therefore, the present bid price cannot be confirmed. Accordingly, the plot
was again put up for re-auction. Resolution No. 112 is hereinafter
reproduced hereinbelow:

8
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
“112. कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( क्षेत्रफल
67.60 वर्ग मीटर लगभग )
कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( आरक्षित दर ₹
93,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर ) की नीलामी हेतु चार बोलीदाताओं द्वारा प्रतिभाग किया गया , जिसका
विवरण निम्नवत् है :–
क्र 0
आवेदन पत्र
बोलीदाता का नाम
सं 0
आरक्षित दर
(₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
बोली में प्राप्त दर
संख्या
(₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
1. प्रदीप कुमार तिवारी 151 93,000.00 1,55,000.00
2. जगविन्दर सिंह 178 93,000.00 1,49,000.00
मनोज कुमार
3. 188 93,000.00 1,28,000.00
प्रभाकर
4. साईपाल 221 93,000.00 1,56,000.00
उपरोक्त नीलामी में सर्वोच्च बोलीदाता श्री साईपाल ( आवेदन पत्र संख्या– 221) की बोली
धनांक ₹ 1,56,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर प्राप्त हुई है। जो न्यूनतम निर्धारित दरों से 67.74 प्रतिशत
उच्च है। अवगत कराना है कि पूर्व नीलामी दिनांक 30.07.2025 में उक्त भूखण्ड हेतु सर्वोच्च
उच्चतम बोली धनांक ₹ 1,95,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर प्राप्त हुई थी , जिसकी तुलना में वर्तमान
नीलामी दिनांक 11.09.2025 को सर्वोच्च बोलीदाता श्री साईपाल की प्राप्त सर्वोच्च बोली धनांक ₹
1,56,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर न्यायोचित प्रति नहीं होती है। अतः समिति विस्तृत विचारोपरान्त
कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 को पुनः विज्ञापन / आगामी
नीलामी के माध्यम से विक्रय किये जाने की संस्तुति करती है। "
(as extracted from the original records)
16. Thereafter, by means of Resolution dated 23.09.2025, the Plot No.
A-252 was again put up for auction to be held on 15.10.2025. For the said
auction, there were three bidders including the highest bidder of the
auction conducted on 11.09.2025, namely Mr. Saipal. In the said auction,
reserved price was Rs. 93,000/- per Sq, mtrs. and the highest bid that was
received in the said auction was Rs. 1,11,000/- per Sq, mtrs. by the
petitioner. The second highest bid was of Mr. Saipal Singh of Rs.
1,10,000/- which was significantly lower than to his earlier bid on
11.09.2025 of Rs. 1,56,000/-. However, the highest bid was also cancelled
on the ground that in the earlier round of auction held on 30.07.2025, the
maximum bidding price was 1,95,000/- and as the current bid price was
₹
lower than the earlier bid price of 1,95,000/-, therefore, the present bid
₹
price cannot be confirmed. Accordingly, the plot was again put up for re-
auction. Resolution No. 109 is hereinafter reproduced hereinbelow:

9
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
“109. कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( क्षेत्रफल
67.60 वर्ग मीटर लगभग )
कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 ( आरक्षित दर ₹
93,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर ) की नीलामी हेतु तीन बोलीदाताओं द्वारा प्रतिभाग किया गया , जिसका
विवरण निम्नवत् है :–
क्र 0
आवेदन पत्र
बोलीदाता का नाम
सं 0
आरक्षित दर
(₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
बोली में प्राप्त दर
संख्या
(₹ प्रति वर्गमी 0)
1. अमित कुमार 09 93,000.00 1,11,000.00
मैट्रो इण्डि या लि 0 द्वारा
2. 14 93,000.00 96,000.00
राहुल अग्रवाल
3. साईपाल सिंह 55 93,000.00 1,10,000.00
( टिप्पणि यां एवं आदेश )
उपरोक्त नीलामी में सर्वोच्च बोलीदाता श्री अमित कुमार ( आवेदन पत्र संख्या– 09) की
बोली धनांक ₹ 1,11,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर प्राप्त हुई है। जो न्यूनतम निर्धारित दरों से 19.35
प्रतिशत उच्च है। समिति के संज्ञान में लाया गया कि पूर्व नीलामी दिनांक 30.07.2025 में उक्त
भूखण्ड हेतु सर्वोच्च उच्चतम बोली धनांक ₹ 1,95,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर प्राप्त हुई थी , जिसकी
तुलना में वर्तमान नीलामी दिनांक 15.10.2025 को सर्वोच्च बोलीदाता श्री अमित कुमार की प्राप्त
सर्वोच्च बोली धनांक ₹ 1,11,000.00 प्रति वर्ग मीटर न्यायोचित प्रति नहीं होती है। अतः समिति
विस्तृत विचारोपरान्त कौशाम्बी योजना ब्लॉक–ए 0 स्थि त आवासीय भूखण्ड संख्या– A-252 को पुनः
विज्ञापन / आगामी नीलामी के माध्यम से विक्रय किये जाने की संस्तुति करती है। "
(as extracted from the original records)
17. Thereafter, by means of a fresh auction notice dated 02.12.2025,
fresh auction came to be held by means of order dated 29.12.2025 in
which the highest bid of Rs. 2,06,000/- was accepted as against the
reserved price of 93,000/- per sq. mtrs. As this bid was higher than the
₹
earlier bid, therefore, the said bid was accepted and the auction bidder was
directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount.
18. Perusal of the record reveals that the Authority has continued to
re-auction the plot repeatedly in the hope that they would get the price that
could be acceptable to the Authority. In the auction, the pertinent thing to
note is that the reserved price of earlier auctions was kept at a constant
price of 93,000/- per sq.mtrs. Even though in the first auction, bid price
₹
of 1,95,000/- per sq. mtrs was received, which was more than double the
₹
reserved price of 93,000/-, yet, for a strange reason that the plot was put
₹
to auction for the first time, the bid was rejected. Then successively lower
bids were received than the last highest bid of 1,95,000/-, but higher than
₹

10
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
the reserved price of 93,000/- per sq. mtrs., which according to the
₹
Authority was not acceptable as they were below the first bid price.
19. It is only in the fourth auction that the Authority managed to fetch
the highest bid of 2,06,000/- per sq. mtrs which was acceptable to the
₹
Authority. Looking into the conduct of the Authority while holding the
auction, it is indeed strange to notice that the Authority does not believe
in finality of an auction. Even though the first bid price was substantially
higher than the reserved price fixed, the Authority chose to reject it for a
reason that the plot was auctioned for the first time and hence it is possible
that it would fetch a higher price. It indeed fetched a higher price in the
fourth auction conducted by the Authority, but the bid price was only
11,000/- higher. Whether that would constitute a substantial increase in
₹
the first bid price of 1,95,000/- cannot be discerned from the records,
₹
because there is no data available on the record regarding the actual
costing done by the Authority and what would be the acceptable reserve
price.
20. Another strange reason to note is that the reserved price for the
four auctions over a period of three months remained the same, even
though after the first auction the authority was well aware that the bid
exceeding double of the reserved price had been received. The first ground
for rejection was that the plot was to be put for auction for the first time
and the second and third rejection grounds were that the bid price did not
meet the first bid price of 1,95,000/-.
₹
21. We fail to understand as to how the first bid price of 1,95,000/-
₹
can be the relevant factor in rejection of the bids when the Authority itself
did not accept it. Once the Authority has rejected the bid, then the said bid
and its relevance would be lost in the subsequent auctions and the
subsequent auctions and its respective bids should in normal business
transaction, be taken as the highest bid.

11
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
22. The record also reflects a very curious tendency of the Authority
to cancel the bid repeatedly on the ground that they would receive a higher
bid. But even more surprising is the fact of not raising the reserve price.
What is the rationale of the Auction committee to form an opinion that a
higher bid would be received in future is not reflected in the records. It
appears to be a mere speculative exercise in the hope of a big windfall.
Unfortunately, in the second and third auctions the highest bid kept falling
and it is only in the fourth auction, the bid price was significantly higher
than the reserve price but not that substantially higher than the highest bid
received in the first auction.
23. In the present case, the reserved price remained constant
throughout and to say that there would be a higher bid war between
bidders, would be a complete fallacy. The Authority must act in a fair and
transparent manner and the constant re-auction does not inspire such
confidence. The action on the part of the Authority cannot be treated as an
accepted practice which can be attributed to an instrumentality of the
State.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent Authority has submitted that
the auction in favour of the petitioner did not stand concluded as the
Auction Committee/ Vice-Chairman did not confirm the auction as
contained in Clause (xi) of the bid document. He submits that the rights
would accrue to the petitioner only once the auction stood concluded and
as such once no confirmation was granted in favour of the petitioner, the
petitioner cannot challenge the cancellation order.
25 . It is well settled that a highest bidder has “no indefeasible right to
insist upon award. The tendering authority may reject the highest offer
and may, in an appropriate case, cancel the process altogether. A reserve
price is a threshold and not a promise of allotment. At the same time, the
reservation of such power in the tender conditions does not place its
exercise beyond judicial review. Where the decision is challenged, the

12
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
Court is entitled to examine whether the consideration which moved the
public authority was relevant; whether the material before it reasonably
supported the conclusion; and, whether the power was exercised
consistently with the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness.”
Vide ( M/s Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
2
others;
26. When an argument of colourable exercise of power is raised, the
Court is concerned with the decision making process and not with the
ultimate decision itself. It is a well settled principle of law that judicial
review of actions taken by various Authorities can be allowed to see the
actual process leading to the final decision. In the present case, what the
Court is concerned about is the reason for cancellation and re-auction. The
records were called for to see what the decision-making process was in
cancelling the bid of the petitioner, as the cancellation e-mail dated
27.10.2025 did not contain any reason. Ordinarily, lack of reasons in
cancellation order would be sufficient grounds to cancel the process and
the decision and remand the matter back, but in this case as the records
were called for by a judicial order, therefore, we are capable of examining
the decision taken by the Authority in the cancellation intimation e-mail.
The question of remanding back to the Authority also does not arise, as
the records reflect that there is a systematic endeavour to cancel the
auction as well as the highest bid in the hope of achieving a bigger price.
The records and the two successive auctions before the auction of the
petitioner clearly shows that the sole reasoning for cancellation of the
highest bid was the anticipation of a higher price. The question of
cancelling an auction for achieving a higher price is no longer res integra
as the Supreme Court in the case of Golden Food (Supra) has held as
follows :
“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
2 2026 INSC 1125

13
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
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 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.”
27. What the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in Golden Food (Supra)
is that the auction conducted has a legal sanctity to it which cannot be
set at naught if there is no infirmity in conducting the auction. The
infirmity may arise due to reasons of collusion, suppression of material
facts or any other reason which would vitiate the auction proceedings.
The Court goes to say that the reason to discard the highest bid must
have a rationale nexus to it and merely because “the Authority
conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest
bidder had offered cannot be a reason to discard the highest bid”.
We are not concerned with the first auction conducted on
30.07.2025 and the second auction conducted on 11.09.2025, but the
decision-making process done in the auction held on 15.10.2025 can
be scrutinized by this Court. Thus, upon examination, the entire
decision-making process of the Authority in cancelling the auction
dated 15.10.2025 is patently illegal and perverse in law as per the ratio
laid down in Golden Food (Supra). No doubt the decision in Golden
Foods (supra) was given after the Authority had taken a decision to
cancel but as all the judgments are retrospective unless made to apply
3
prospectively {vide P.V. George vs. State of Kerala; , (2) Government of
4
India & another vs. Sri Devraj Urs Medical College; } , therefore the ratio
of Golden Foods (Supra) is applicable in the present case.
3 (2007) 3 SCC 557
4 2026 INSC 799

14
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
28. After examining the records and after evaluating the decision-
making process and keeping in mind the ratio as laid down in Golden
Food (Supra), we are not hesitant in holding that the entire decision-
making process of the Authority is nothing but a colourable exercise of
power and is tainted with arbitrariness and illegalities. The reason we hold
so is that the record does not reflect that there is any complaint regarding
the auction conducted on 15.10.2025, nor there is any evidence of
collusion, fraud, suppression of material facts etc. to vitiate the auction
process.
29. Once the highest price is received in an auction, then any
Authority/ public body conducting the auction must abide by the highest
price received, unless there are extenuating circumstances which would
render the entire auction proceedings vitiated. In the present case, we do
not find any such factors exist which tainted the auction proceeding and
the decision of the Authority, to hold out for a better price by cancelling
the auction, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and we
accordingly hold so keeping in mind the ratio as laid down in Dhanlaxmi
(supra).
30. Consequently, cancellation intimation e-mail dated 27.10.2025
along with order of cancellation dated 24.10.2025 is held to be arbitrary
and illegal and is, accordingly, set aside.
31. A question may arise that the Resolution of the Auction
Committee dated 21.10.2025 confirmed by the Vice-Chairman has not
been challenged. The said Resolution was never brought to the knowledge
of the petitioner. As the petitioner was never intimated about the same
therefore the petitioner was precluded from challenging the same. As we
have examined the entire records and have held that the decision-making
process undertaken in cancelling the highest bid of the petitioner was

15
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
illegal, resultantly the Resolution also loses its effect and cannot be relied
upon.
32. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that since the
highest bidder as confirmed by the approval of the Vice-Chairman dated
02.01.2026 has not been impleaded in the petition, therefore no effective
relief can be granted and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It would be
relevant to note that the petition came to be filed after the decision was
taken on 02.12.2025 to re-advertise the disputed plot. The disputed plot
was to be auctioned on 29.12.2025 by the Authority. After the filing of the
writ petition, a note was put up by the Law Officer of the Authority on
11.12.2025 stating that the writ petition has been filed regarding the
auction held on 15.10.2025 and instructions are to be provided. After filing
of the writ petition, the petitioner informed the Authority i.e. respondent
No.1 by means of e-mail dated 13.12.2025 to stop the auction to be held
on 29.12.2025. The petitioner specifically states that as the writ petition
had been filed, therefore auction to be held on 29.12.2025 may be stopped.
Thereafter, a letter by registered post was also sent on 13.12.2025 which
was received in the office of respondent no.1 on 15.12.2025 and the
concerned office was directed to take necessary proceeding in the matter
by order of the Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority dated
15.12.2025.
33. Thus, the record reflects that the Authority was in the knowledge
of the filing of writ petition and the e-mail and the letter written by the
petitioner intimating the status of the writ petition. Thereafter, when the
writ petition was taken up on 17.12.2025, learned counsel for the
Authority was granted time to seek instructions in the matter, but during
the intervening winter holidays of the High Court, the auction proceeding
was conducted on 29.12.2025 and on 02.01.2026 the bid of Rs. 2,06,000/-
made by one person namely Pramod for the disputed plot was accepted.
The record also reflects that thereafter on 19.01.2026, the plot was allotted
to the bidder and the remaining 25% of the bid price as per terms and

16
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
conditions of the bid document was to be deposited by 26.01.2026.
However, report dated 23.03.2026 reflects that the allottee i.e. Pramod has
neither deposited 25% of the bid price nor the deed has been executed and
therefore, possession is yet to be given to allottee. Record also reflects that
till 13.04.2026 the possession had not been handed over to the allottee nor
the amount to be deposited by 26.01.2026 i.e. 32,70,168/- has yet been
₹
deposited by the allottee.
34. A perusal of the above shows that the Authority was well aware of
the writ petition being filed in the High Court challenging the cancellation
of the highest bid of the petitioner submitted in auction held on
15.10.2025, as there are several correspondence from the petitioner's side
intimating respondent no.1/Authority with regard to filing of the writ
petition. Furthermore, there is nothing on record which shows that the
allottee had been intimated about the pendency of the writ petition before
the High Court, as the allottee had refused to make the payment and take
possession on the ground that there is certain encroachment over the site
and in one of the emails dated 24.01.2026 had sought for cancellation of
the allotment.
35. As the subsequent allotment has been done during the pendency of
the writ petition, therefore, it is the considered view of the Court that any
subsequent auction of the Authority qua the disputed plot would be hit by
doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. The doctrine of lis pendens is a well recognized
principle that the alienation during the pendency of the suit proceeding,
such alienee would attract the said doctrine and alienees would be bound
by the decision in the pending proceeding. (vide Usha Sinha Vs. Dina
5 6
Ram, & Singhara Singh Vs. Daljit Singh )
36. The Court while dealing with the doctrine of lis pendens under
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, held that doctrine of lis
5 (2008) 7 SCC 144
6 2024 INSC 770

17
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
pendens is applicable to a transaction during the pendency of the suit. In
the said case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court
on the ground that the subsequent sale during the pendency of the suit was
hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the subsequent sale was set aside. In
the present case, as the allotment has been made during the pendency of
the writ proceedings to which the Authority had complete notice,
therefore, any alienation of the disputed plot by the Authority would
attract the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
37. Mere fact that the Authority had neglected to inform the
subsequent allottee about the pendency of the writ petition would not
enable the subsequent allottee to claim any right, as the allottee in the
present case can be suitably compensated by refund of money along with
interest as deemed permissible. In the present case the fact that 25% of the
bid amount is yet to be deposited and the deed is yet to be executed in
favour of the allottee, therefore there would be no substantial damage to
the subsequent allottee which cannot be compensated by pecuniary
means. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that non-impleadment
of the subsequent allottee would not affect the right of the petitioner to
challenge his cancellation order and to seek revival of his auction to the
detriment of the subsequent allottee.
38. In the present case, subsequent auction has taken place which has
resulted in creation of certain rights in favour of the subsequent allottee,
who has not been impleaded in the writ petition. However, as we have
held above that the non-impleadment of the subsequent allottee would not
render the writ petition liable to be dismissed as the subsequent allottee
can be compensated by pecuniary methods, therefore, it is necessary to
elucidate as to why the restitution has to be provided to the subsequent
allottee.

18
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
7
In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Corporation Bank & Ors , the
Supreme Court has held that “the auction purchaser has been caught in the
undertow of circumstances, not of its making. Among all the actors in this
legal drama, it alone stands innocent. The Auction Purchaser entered the
auction proceeding in good faith, placed its bid and deposited its hard-
earned money in the belief that the law clothed the auction with
legitimacy. The Court further held that the Auction Purchaser neither
breached the covenant nor failed in diligence and did not seek to profit
from the illegality and the restitution, therefore, becomes not merely a
legal device but a moral imperative.” Applying the said ratio, as the
subsequent allottee in the present case has entered into the auction in good
faith during the pendency of the writ petition without being informed of
the pendency by the Authority, therefore, the allottee is entitled to
restitution i.e. refund of entire amount deposited along with interest as
directed above.
39. We are also of the considered view that by not doing so, it would
cause damage far greater than what can be compensated to the subsequent
allottee in terms of money.
ANSWER TO THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION:
40. Regarding Issue No. 1 as to whether the cancellation intimation
dated 27.10.2025 amounts to colourable exercise of power in as much as
it does not disclose the reason for cancellation of the highest bid, the issue
is answered in the affirmative holding that there is a colourable exercise
of power by the Authority in cancelling the highest bid offered in the
auction held on 15.10.2025.
41. Regarding Issue No. 2 as to whether the justification given by the
Authority in cancelling the bid, that expectation of a higher bid in future
auctions is justified, the issue is answered in the negative holding that in
7 2025 INSC 1161

19
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
the light of the ratio laid down in Golden Food (supra), the decision taken
by the Authority is bad in the eyes of law.
42. Regarding Issue No. 3 as to whether non-impleadment of the
subsequent allottee renders the writ petition liable to be dismissed, the
issue is answered in the negative holding that non-impleadment of the
subsequent allottee does not render the writ petition liable to be dismissed
and the petitioner can maintain the writ petition to challenge his
cancellation.
43. Regarding Issue No. 4, as to what relief can be granted if the
answer of Issue No. 1 is in affirmative, following directions are issued:
(i) The cancellation intimation dated 27.10.2025 containing the
cancellation order dated 24.10.2025 is set aside. Consequently, the
auction held on 15.10.2025 is restored to the highest bid of the
petitioner.
(ii) The Authority shall issue an allotment letter in favour of the
petitioner and as per the terms and conditions of the bid document,
the petitioner will have to make necessary payments. In absence of
making payment in time as scheduled, necessary legal
consequences as provided will follow.
(iii) As the previous auction proceeding dated 15.10.2025 is revived
with consequences to follow, therefore the auction proceedings held
on 29.12.2025 and the subsequent allotment letter dated 19.01.2026
do not have any sanctity of law and cannot be relied upon.
(iv) As a result of the above, the subsequent allottee is entitled for the
refund of the entire money deposited with the Authority along with
6% interest. The said refund shall be made within a period of one
month from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In

20
Writ C No. 44444 of 2025
case of default, the interest shall stand increased to 9% on the
refunded amount.
CONCLUSION :
44. With the above findings and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
45. Let the original records, which were retained by this Court vide
order dated 08.10.2026, be returned to Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel
representing Ghaziabad Development Authority.
(Kunal Ravi Singh, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
November 3, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad