Om Sweets Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructures Development Corporation Ltd. (Hsiidc) & Anr

CWP No.35410 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109
CWP No.35410 of 2026
th
Date of decision: October 30 , 2026
Om Sweets Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructures Development Corporation Ltd.
and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Dr. Surya Parkash and Mr. Vikram Amarnath Garg, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. In the headnote of the petition, the following prayers have been
made:
“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the Communication/Email dated 09.06.2026
(Annexure P9) whereby the petitioner's H-1 bid in respect of
Plot No. 529-B, Sector-20A, IMT Sohna, admeasuring 16,500
sqm., was rejected;
AND/OR
Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to treat the petitioner's H-1 bid as duly acceptable
in accordance with the applicable criteria/framework and to
issue the Regular Letter of Allotment in favour of the petitioner
in respect of Plot No. 529-B, Sector-20A, IMT Sohna,
admeasuring 16,500 sqm.;
AND/OR
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 2
In the alternative, direct Respondent No. 1 / the competent
authority to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the
Board-approved criteria dated 22.06.2023, the treatment of
comparable cases in the 34th EEC Minutes, and the Punjab and
Haryana High Court order dated 02.07.2026 in CWP No. 10494
of 2026 (Annexure P15) and connected matters, after granting
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a time-bound
period;
AND/OR
Pending disposal of the writ petition, restrain the respondents
from re-auctioning, transferring, allotting, or creating any third-
party rights in respect of Plot No. 529-B, Sector-20A, IMT
Sohna, admeasuring 16,500 sqm.;
AND/OR
For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on
28.11.2025, the HSIIDC had issued a second advertisement for E-auction of
industrial plots in various industrial estates, in which the registration was
started from 28.11.2025 till 18.12.2025. It is submitted that in pursuance of
the same, the petitioner deposited the earnest money of 1,88,25,000/- while ₹
applying online for Plot No.529-B, Sector 20A, IMT Sohna, 16500 sqm at
the reserve price of 22,800/- per sqm. It is submitted that on 30.03.2026, an ₹
E-auction was held for IE Kundli etc. at the reserve price given in the
brochure and thereafter on 14.05.2026, the E-auction schedule issued for
allotment of industrial plots IMT Sohna, where the petitioner had applied,
was re-issued with an increased reserve price of 24,700/- per sqm. It is ₹
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 3
submitted that the petitioner had given the highest bid of 25,900/- and the ₹
E-auction system declared the petitioner as the H-1 bidder and an intimation
email was sent to the petitioner. It is further submitted that one
Vishal Jairath was the highest bidder for Plot No.138 at 25,700/- per sqm. ₹
and he has been allotted the plot, whereas the present petitioner has not been
allotted the plot, although the bid given by the petitioner was higher than the
bid given by Vishal Jairath. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
th
highlighted that in the 34 meeting of the Empowered Executive Committee
held under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Haryana, several
plots were allotted to single bidders/applicants at reserve price only. The
details of the same, which have been highlighted, are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“(i) Plot No. 529-C, 12000 sqm, (the plot abutting to the plot
No.529-B of petitioner) in favour of M/s Orient Fashion
Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., a sole applicant, at the reserve price of
Rs. 24,700/- per sqm. only, though H1 bid of Rs.25,900/- per
sqm. of the petitioner for the abutting plot No.529-B (16500
sqm.) is rejected.
(ii) A 28,000 sqm plot at IMT Bawal in favour of single bid
M/s Bollhoff Fastening Pvt.Ltd..
(iii) A 6,000 sqm plot at IMT Bawal in favour of single
applicant M/s Machcore Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(iv) A 10,500 sqm plot at IE Dharuhera in favour of single
applicant Shri Rajesh Sharma.
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 4
(v) A 11,500 sqm plot at IE Dharuhera in favour of single
applicant M/s Richaco Exports Pvt.Ltd..
(vi) A 52,580 sqm plot at EMC/IMT Sohna in favour of single
applicant M/s Trontek Electronics Ltd..
(vii) A 23,150 sqm plot at IE Barhi in favour of single applicant
M/s Paras Polymers.”

3. It is further submitted that the Estate Management Committee
had initially recommended the case of the petitioner but still the respondent-
authorities vide email dated 09.06.2026 rejected the highest bid of the
petitioner on the ground that there is no competition in this auction category.
It is submitted that the said action of the respondents is arbitrary and against
the law. It is further submitted that even the parameters as mentioned in
clause 9 (j) (ii) of the brochure dated 28.11.2025 were not complied with
before rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that apart from the action of the respondents being
arbitrary, the said decision is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Golden Food Products India Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported as 2026 AIR Supreme Court 335, in which
it has been held 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
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 5
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 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.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders of
the High Court dated 24.05.2024 and 15.07.2024 passed
in the respective writ petitions are set-aside. The
appellant is directed to re-deposit the earnest money
preferably within four weeks from today. Within two
weeks from the date of the re-deposit of the earnest
money, the GDA - respondent No.2 shall make an order
of allotment of the subject plot in favour of the appellant
herein and take all consequential steps for concluding the
auction process in favour of the appellant herein. These
appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
4. It is argued that even in the present case, no other party had
placed a higher bid than the present petitioner and there was no infirmity in
the conduct of the auction and no person has made any complaint against the
process of the auction conducted by the authorities and even the bid made by
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 6
the petitioner was above the reserved price and thus, in the said
circumstances, the highest bid should not have been rejected.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in
view of the above submissions and also in view of the law laid down in the
case of Golden Food Products India (supra), the competent authority i.e. the
Managing Director, HSIIDC, would reconsider the entire matter and would
take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner or its representatives.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said
decision be taken in a time bound manner and till the time the said decision
is taken, the respondents be restrained from auctioning the plot in question.
7. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the
fair stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition is partly allowed and
the communication dated 09.06.2026 is set aside with the following
observations/directions:
(i) Respondent No.1-Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial
and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., who is
admittedly the competent authority, would reconsider the
matter in the light of the facts which have been noticed by this
Court and also after taking into consideration the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Golden Food
Products India (supra) and also after providing an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner/its representatives, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of two months from
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh

CWP No.35410 of 2026 7
today.
(ii) Till the time the said decision is taken, the respondents are
restrained from auctioning the plot in question.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
th

October 30 , 2026 (DIVYA SHARMA)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.10.31 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh