P&H HC Sets Aside Rejection Of Om Sweets’ Highest Bid For Sohna Plot, Bars Re-Auction Until HSIIDC Reconsiders

In brief

The question

1. Whether HSIIDC’s rejection of the petitioner’s highest bid, which exceeded the reserve price, warranted reconsideration in light of the circumstances and the principle in Golden Food Products India

The court held

The writ petition was partly allowed.

It also directed

The communication dated 9 June 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s bid was set aside.

The Managing Director, HSIIDC, was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the facts and Golden Food Products India, after hearing the petitioner or its representatives, preferably within two months.

Until that decision is made, the respondents were restrained from auctioning the plot.

01Facts

HSIIDC invited e-auction bids for industrial plots.

p. 2

The petitioner bid ₹25,900 per sqm for Plot No. 529-B, IMT Sohna, above the revised reserve price of ₹24,700 per sqm, and was declared the H-1 bidder.

p. 2

HSIIDC subsequently rejected the bid by email dated 9 June 2026, stating that there was no competition in the auction category.

pp. 2–5

The petitioner challenged that rejection, relying, among other things, on the allotment of other plots to single bidders at reserve price and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

pp. 2–5

The State’s counsel submitted that the competent authority would reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether HSIIDC’s rejection of the petitioner’s highest bid, which exceeded the reserve price, warranted reconsideration in light of the circumstances and the principle in Golden Food Products India

pp. 3–6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against re-auction of the plot pending that reconsideration

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may review administrative action for legality and arbitrariness.

pp. 4–5

The Court relied on Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 AIR SC 335, which held that an otherwise valid highest bid above the reserve price should not be rejected without a reason rationally connected to the decision; an authority’s mere expectation of a higher bid is insufficient.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Brochure dated 28.11.2025 Section 9

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s bid exceeded the reserve price, and the petitioner relied on the absence of a higher bid, the absence of complaints about the auction process, and the treatment of other single-bid cases.

pp. 5–7

In light of those circumstances and the cited Supreme Court decision, the State agreed that the Managing Director, HSIIDC, would reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner.

pp. 5–7

The Court therefore set aside the rejection and ordered reconsideration, without itself deciding that the bid must be accepted or directing allotment.

pp. 5–7