Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Delhi Development Authority (for short, D.D.A.], issued an
advertisement, which was published in the newspaper dated 21st May, 1988 for
auction of Plot No.235 measuring 84.10 sq. meter situated at Padam Nagar, New
Delhi. In the auction held on 21st June, 1988, the appellants participated along with
other bidders. They gave the highest bid of Rs.3,00,758/-. In terms of the
advertisement, the bid was required to be approved by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A.
The latter rejected the same and his decision was communicated to the appellants vide
letter dated 7th July, 1988, sent by Deputy Director [O.S.D.], D.D.A.
The appellants challenged the rejection of their bid by filing writ petition
which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by relying on the so-called
representation made by ex-Municipal Member to espouse the cause of residents of the
area. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the
Division Bench. Hence, these appeals by special leave.
Undisputedly, the D.D.A. had taken a conscious decision to auction the
plot. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any material has been
produced before this Court to show that the said decision was taken by the competent
authority under some mis-apprehension. It is also not in dispute that the appellants
participated in the auction held on 1st June, 1988, and gave highest bid, which, as
mentioned above, was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A. The communication
dated 7th July, 1988, does not make a mention of the reason which may have prompted
the Vice-Chairman to reject the bid given by the appellants. No other record has
been produced before the Court to show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman was
based on rational and tangible reasons and was in public interest. Therefore, there is
no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the concerned authority was wholly
arbitrary. The learned Single Judge without property appreciating the nature of the
appellants’ challenge to the rejection of their bid, dismissed the writ petition. The
Division Bench also committed the same error by dismissing the appeal. Therefore,
the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeals are
allowed, impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside, writ petition filed
by the appellants before the High Court is allowed and the decision of the Vice-
Chairman, D.D.A. to reject the bid of the appellants is quashed. The appellants are
directed to deposit the amount of bid along with the interest thereon at the rate of
eighteen per cent from the date of bid till the
date of actual payment within a period of three months from today. Thereafter the
D.D.A. shall complete all the formalities of land and hand over possession to the
appellants. The needful be done within three months from the date the amount is
deposited by the appellants.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, August 25, 2008.