15 July 2024


Supreme Court

State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Mehar Din




Highest Bidder has no vested right to have the public auction concluded in his favour

The instant appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, with a further direction to the competent authority to confirm the auction sale and complete all other formalities within three months.

State or authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. In the present case, no right had accrued to the Respondent even on the basis of statutory provisions as being contemplated under Rule 8(1)(h) of Chapter III of the Scheme of Rules, 1976 and in terms of the conditions of auction notice notified for public auction.

Superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders, unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was malafide. It was consistently stressed by this Court that, the need for overwhelming public interest should always be kept in mind to justify judicial intervention in contracts involving the State and its instrumentalities and while exercising power of judicial review in relation to contracts, the Courts should consider primarily the question whether there has been any infirmity in the decision-making process.

Undisputedly, the provisional bid, in the instant case, was not confirmed by the competent authority (Sales Commissioner) and not being accepted after recording its due satisfaction by an order dated 2nd July, 1993 and the decision of the authority in passing the order of cancellation of the auction bid was scrutinized/examined by the appellate/revisional authority and the discretion exercised by the competent authority in taking decision of cancellation was upheld at later stages.

The highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. It was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. The finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment is unsustainable and are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Auction sale Confirmation Validity

Share :