Writ challenge to rejected e-auction bid dismissed for delay and laches; time is of the essence.

HSVP conducted an e-auction on 8 June 2022 for Plot No. 83, Sector 77, Faridabad, a 14-marla plot having a base price of ₹76,24,000.

Although the petitioner submitted the highest bid, her bid was below the undisclosed reserve price. HSVP consequently issued a counter-offer of ₹1,26,53,500 on 25 July 2022.

Under the applicable e-auction policy dated 20 May 2021, the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the differential amount within two days. The petitioner failed to make the payment, and the counter-offer link was deactivated.

HSVP subsequently rejected bids below the reserve price and refunded the petitioner’s deposited 10% bid amount of ₹8,86,400, together with interest of ₹26,846.99, on 3 February 2023.

The petitioner challenged the speaking order dated 25 July 2023 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the rejection order and issuance of a letter of intent on the basis of her highest bid.

The writ petition was filed more than three years after the impugned order.

1. Whether the writ petition challenging HSVP’s speaking order dated 25 July 2023 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, particularly since the dispute concerned an e-auction in which time was of the essence.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a letter of intent or acceptance of the counter-offer despite her bid being below the reserve price and her failure to deposit the prescribed 10% differential amount within the stipulated period.

3. Whether HSVP’s rejection of the petitioner’s bid pursuant to the e-auction policy dated 20 May 2021 and the committee’s decision was liable to be quashed.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, applying the equitable principles of delay and laches.

It held that a belated challenge to an e-auction is ordinarily not maintainable where time is essential, particularly in matters involving payment of consideration and rapidly appreciating property prices.

The Court applied the HSVP e-auction policy dated 20 May 2021, under which a bid below the reserve price could be met with a counter-offer requiring payment of 10% of the differential amount within two days, and under paragraph 29-B the competent committee could decide the fate of bids below the reserve price.

The Court also recognized the distinction between the publicly disclosed base price and the undisclosed reserve price.

The petitioner’s highest bid did not create an enforceable entitlement because it was below HSVP’s reserve price.

HSVP therefore validly issued a counter-offer based on the reserve price.

The petitioner failed to comply with the policy requirement of depositing 10% of the differential amount within two days, resulting in automatic deactivation of the payment link.

The Court accepted HSVP’s finding that notice of the counter-offer had been sent to the petitioner’s registered email address and that the payment link remained active from 25 to 27 July 2022.

HSVP’s committee thereafter rejected below-reserve-price bids under paragraph 29-B of the policy, and the petitioner’s deposited amount, with interest, was refunded.

Since the petitioner approached the Court more than three years after the impugned order, had accepted the refund, and sought to revive an old e-auction concerning appreciating immovable property, the claim was barred by delay and laches.

The Court also noted that the governing 20 May 2021 policy had not been annexed to the petition, while reliance had been placed on a different policy dated 16 June 2020.

The challenge was also barred by gross delay and laches, especially after refund of the deposited amount.

The speaking order dated 25 July 2023 was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed as meritless.

The petitioner was left at liberty to participate in any fresh e-auction for the plot in question.