Javed Iqbal Wani ORDER
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner on the foundation of the case setup implores the following reliefs:-
"Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalize the auction of Shop No. 5 situated in Sector No. 1 Housing Colony Channi Himmat with respect to which auction notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 vide No. DIP/J-398-P dated 15.07.2014.
With further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the Shop No. 5 Sector No. 1, Opposite Plot No. 384, Housing Colony Channi Himmat being only the highest bidder participated and submitted the bid pursuant to the notification issued by respondent No. 2 on 15.07.2014 for leasing out the shop."
2. The background facts under the cover of which the petitioner claims the aforesaid reliefs are that the respondent No. 2-J & K Housing Board (for brevity 'Board') got a notification published in daily newspaper of J & K for allotment of a shop No. 5, in Sector No. 1, at Housing Colony Channi Himmat, Jammu.
3. Petitioner states to have responded to the said notification and submitted his bid thereto along with relevant documents including registration fee. The petitioner states to have submitted a bid for the shop in question for an amount of RS. 5,00,500/- as against minimum reserved bid of RS. 4,75,000/-. A demand draft of RS. 72,000/- i.e., 15% of the total bid amount is also stated to have been pledged in the name of Financial Advisor of the Board. It is being stated that the bid was opened on 12th August, 2014 and the petitioner was found to be the only bidder thereto. It is being stated that the petitioner despite being the lone highest bidder, as such, was required to have been allotted the shop in question by the respondent-Board which, however, is stated not have been done by the respondent-Board. The failure of the respondents thus, in this regard is urged in the ground of the petition as bad in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, besides being arbitrarily and tainted with malice. It is also being urged in the grounds that the respondent No. 2 infact intended to allot the shop in question to his blue eyed person and that the respondents action is bad inasmuch as, smacks arbitrariness and discrimination, besides violating Article 31 of the Constitution.
4. Per contra, the respondents have filed objections in opposition to the writ petition where under the contentions and grounds raised and urged in the petition are being resisted and controverted, to the extent that even though the petitioner submitted his bid for the shop in question, yet the petitioner was lone bidder necessitating recalling the process of bidding, in that as per the norms for such kind of bid at least three tenderers/bidders must participate in the process of bidding. It is being stated in the objections that the respondent-Board is a public organization and for auctioning of public property is governed by the principle based on public policy. The alleged violation of any of the rights much less those contended in the writ petition are denied.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.
6. The wharf and woof under the shade of which the entire controversy raised in this petition revolves is that, as to whether any indefeasible right vested unto the petitioner upon responding to the notification issued by the respondent-Board qua the allotment of shop in question and non-finalization of the process of bidding by the respondents upon finding the petitioner to be lone bidder for the shop in question, on the fundamental principle of public policy and violated any such right of the petitioner.
7. Before dealing with the said question, it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer hereunder a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, being relevant ........