Highest bidder acquires no vested right to allotment until statutory approval by competent authority.

The petitioners participated in a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, on 05.07.2023 for the allotment of commercial plots

The petitioners were declared the highest bidders (H-1) and deposited the earnest money and differential amounts as required

The proposal for allotment was approved by the Mayor-in-Council and the General Body of the Corporation, but it required final sanction from the Collector under statutory rules

Upon scrutiny, the Collector found fundamental flaws in the tender process, including a violation of the State’s circular requiring a minimum 20-day gap between the tender notice and bid opening (the gap was only 18 days)

Consequently, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the NIT on 10.01.2025 and directed a refund of security deposits

The petitioners challenged this cancellation, seeking execution of the sale deeds

1. Whether the declaration of a bidder as H-1 and the subsequent deposit of money creates an indefeasible right or a concluded contract in favor of the bidder

2. Whether the competent authority (Collector) can validly reject a tender process due to procedural irregularities and non-compliance with statutory rules

The court primarily applied Section 80 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which mandates that the disposal of municipal property is subject to specific rules and requires the sanction of the competent authority

It also relied on the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994, and the State Government circular dated 10.04.2017 regarding tender timelines

Drawing from Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013), the court reaffirmed that the highest bid does not result in a concluded contract until all prescribed conditions are fulfilled

Furthermore, the court cited Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments (2007) and Laxmikant v. Satyawan (1996), which establish that a bidder acquires no vested right until the bid is confirmed by the final authority

The Court reasoned that the tender process was governed by the statutory framework of the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 1994, meaning the transfer of municipal property could not reach finality without the Collector's prior approval

The petitioners' status as H-1 bidders was merely an intermediate stage in a multi-tiered decision-making process

The Court found that the Collector's refusal to grant approval was based on a "fundamental flaw"—specifically, the failure to provide the mandatory 20-day notice period prescribed by the State circular, which resulted in only 18 days being provided

Since the competent authority withheld sanction based on these discrepancies, no concluded contract existed between the parties

The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and, absent proof of patent arbitrariness or mala fides, it would not protect private interests at the expense of public interest in commercial transactions of the State

The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to establish any enforceable legal right to compel the allotment of the plots

While rejecting the challenge to the cancellation order dated 10.01.2025, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to refund the deposited amounts to the petitioners along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of deposit until realization