Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Rahul Kumar and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3932 of 1998
Petitioner: Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Anr.
Respondent: Rahul Kumar and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3932 of 1998
Judges: V.N. KHARE & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 13, 2001
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 226 – Tender – Settling of land – Highest tenderer not responding – Second highest tenderer approaching High Court – High Court directing the land to be settled in his favour in case highest tenderer does not deposit the amount – Justification. Held that High Court could not bind the authorities to settle the land in favour of second tenderer, when price quoted by him was much lower than that of highest tenderer. Authorities are required to settle land with best possible price. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellants herein invited tenders for settlement of plots of land on lease. The off-set price of the said land was Rs. 7,500/- per sq. mtr. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 both submitted their respective tenders in response to the said advertisement. The total price quoted by respondent no. 2 for the said land was Rs. 34,03,736/- whereas the total price quoted by respondent no. 1 was Rs. 25,56,884/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 9,313/- per sq. mtr. Both the tenders were submitted on 12th September, 1996. However, respondent no. 2, who was the highest tenderer did not respond to his tender. With the result his tender was cancelled and it was decided to invite fresh tenders.
2. Respondent no. 1 herein filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court for direc-tion that since the highest tenderer has not responded to the tender, the lease of land may be settled in his favour, he being the second highest tenderer on the price quoted by him. The High Court was of the view that in case within two weeks from the date of judgment the highest tenderer deposit the entire stipulated amount, the lease of land shall be settled in his favour. In case of default, the lease shall be settled in favour of respondent no. 1 on the price quoted by him. It is against the said judgment the Society has challenged the validity of the judgment in this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the direction of the High Court to the extent that in case of failure of respondent no. 2 to deposit the highest price, the lease of land shall be settled in favour of respondent no. 1 is patently erroneous. The argument has merit. It is almost now settled that the Government or authorities are required to settle the sale or lease of land at the best possible price and not confined to the offset price indicated in the advertisement. Here what we find is that the highest tender was for a sum of Rs. 34,03,736/- whereas the price quoted by first respondent was Rs. 25,56,884/-. There is wide gap between the prices quoted by the parties. The High Court cannot bind the authority to settle the tender or bid in favour of the second highest tenderer even if the offset price fixed by the appellants was Rs. 7,500/- sq. mtr. We find that the judgment of the High Court to this extent suffers from legal infirmity. During the course of hearing on the statement of Counsel for appellant an offer was given to respondent no. 1 for taking lease of the land on the price quoted by respondent no. 2. In response to that offer we are informed that he is not agree-able to the said offer. Under such circumstances, the order and judgment under challenge is set aside. However, it is open to the appellants to settle the lease of land by inviting fresh tenders.
4. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The appellants herein invited tenders for settlement of plots of land on lease. The off-set price of the said land was Rs. 7,500/- per sq. mtr. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 both submitted their respective tenders in response to the said advertisement. The total price quoted by respondent no. 2 for the said land was Rs. 34,03,736/- whereas the total price quoted by respondent no. 1 was Rs. 25,56,884/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 9,313/- per sq. mtr. Both the tenders were submitted on 12th September, 1996. However, respondent no. 2, who was the highest tenderer did not respond to his tender. With the result his tender was cancelled and it was decided to invite fresh tenders.
2. Respondent no. 1 herein filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court for direc-tion that since the highest tenderer has not responded to the tender, the lease of land may be settled in his favour, he being the second highest tenderer on the price quoted by him. The High Court was of the view that in case within two weeks from the date of judgment the highest tenderer deposit the entire stipulated amount, the lease of land shall be settled in his favour. In case of default, the lease shall be settled in favour of respondent no. 1 on the price quoted by him. It is against the said judgment the Society has challenged the validity of the judgment in this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the direction of the High Court to the extent that in case of failure of respondent no. 2 to deposit the highest price, the lease of land shall be settled in favour of respondent no. 1 is patently erroneous. The argument has merit. It is almost now settled that the Government or authorities are required to settle the sale or lease of land at the best possible price and not confined to the offset price indicated in the advertisement. Here what we find is that the highest tender was for a sum of Rs. 34,03,736/- whereas the price quoted by first respondent was Rs. 25,56,884/-. There is wide gap between the prices quoted by the parties. The High Court cannot bind the authority to settle the tender or bid in favour of the second highest tenderer even if the offset price fixed by the appellants was Rs. 7,500/- sq. mtr. We find that the judgment of the High Court to this extent suffers from legal infirmity. During the course of hearing on the statement of Counsel for appellant an offer was given to respondent no. 1 for taking lease of the land on the price quoted by respondent no. 2. In response to that offer we are informed that he is not agree-able to the said offer. Under such circumstances, the order and judgment under challenge is set aside. However, it is open to the appellants to settle the lease of land by inviting fresh tenders.
4. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
