Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the respondent authority has violated the procedure prescribed for the purpose of conducting of an auction bid in terms of the Brochure (copy whereof is Annexure-2) with regard to the settlement of a commercial plot.
One of the grounds raised in the petition is that the settlement which has now been made with a private person, he had not submitted any bid in the tender box as per the Clause 4(2) of the Brochure, yet the bid has been accepted and such award being contrary to the procedure prescribed, the same deserves to be annulled.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was the only bidder who had deposited the tender documents in the box. Since he was the highest bidder it ought to have been accepted.
Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the Development Authority has produced the copy of the order dated 24th June 2014 in favour of M/S UGS Transman Pvt Ltd. through its Director, Neeraj Kumar Jain. He submits that the respondent No.5 is not the awardee of the said auction and therefore, the relief against the respondent no.5 cannot be granted.
We have perused the said acceptance order and we direct Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner to implead the aforesaid party as respondent no.7 during the course of the day.
A prayer has been made for a CBI inquiry and the CBI has been made a party as respondent no.6. On the facts of this case, we are not inclined to allow any such inquiry on the basis of further material that has been produced by Sri Dayal before us today as no such investigation is required at this stage. We, accordingly, direct the petitioner to score out the respondent no.6 from the array of the parties.
The additional material which has been produced by Sri Dayal is the compilation of the documents indicating the bid sheet and the manner in which auction has been finalised in favour of M/S UGS Transman Pvt. Ltd.
The said documents clearly show that his offer had been sent by post and it was entertained on the direction of the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority. Accordingly, since the bid offered by the said party was higher than the petitioner, it was treated to be in order and was accepted.
From the record, we further find that the application form of the said party, that was filled up by it, clearly indicates that the form has to be deposited in the manner as prescribed in the Brochure namely between 11 A.M. to 2 P.M. on the date fixed in the tender box placed in the office of the Development Authority. From the documents which have been produced, prima facie, it is established that the tender offered by the said party was not in accordance with the said procedure prescribed and has been received otherwise on the direction of the Vice Chairman upon being sent by post.
We are, therefore, convinced that this procedure of receiving the tender was clearly violated and the offer was accepted in violation of the terms and conditions of the said Brochure by the authority itself. The authority, therefore, in our opinion, had no reason to violate its own terms and conditions and admit an offer through any other method apart from what was prescribed under the terms and conditions of the Brochure.
Consequently, until further orders of the Court, we direct the authority not to give effect to the acceptance letter dated 24.6.2014 in any manner whatsoever during pendency of the writ petition.
Since the party, in whose favour the acceptance has been indicated by the authority, is not before us today, it would be appropriate to put it to notice.
Accordingly, respondent no.7 shall be served by the petitioner through registered post and the Development Authority shall also put to notice respondent no.7 about the pendency of this writ petition. The Development Authority and the respondent no.7 shall both file their affidavits within two weeks.
Learned counsel is further permitted to file an appropriate amendment application challenging the said allotment in favour of the respondent no.7.
List immediately thereafter.
Necessary corrections be carried out.
A copy of the order be given today on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 11.7.2014 Ajay