Uma Kant Mishra and ors. Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and ors.

Uma Kant Mishra and ors. vs Allahabad Development Authority and ors.

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Mar 28, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/463366

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/463366
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Prakash Krishna, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 28, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 47001 of 2002
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - order of reauction - petitioner only bidder in auction challenged reauction order of Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority - terms invoiced in notification shows Vice-Chairman can accept or reject any bid - bid of petitioner not up to market price liable to be rejected. -

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Uma Kant Mishra and ors.

Advocate Deepak Jaiswal and ;V.K. Jaiswal, Advs.

Respondent

Allahabad Development Authority and ors.

Advocate A.K. Misra, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(3)AWC1735

Excerpt

civil - order of reauction - petitioner only bidder in auction challenged reauction order of vice-chairman, allahabad development authority - terms invoiced in notification shows vice-chairman can accept or reject any bid - bid of petitioner not up to market price liable to be rejected. - orderm. katju and prakash krishna, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 18th october, 2002, annexures-5, 6 to 10 to the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to issue allotment orders in favour of the petitioners in respect to plots in question in shantipuram (phaphamau) awas yojna, allahabad, and not to re-auction the same.3. from a perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioners were the only bidders of the plots they are claiming. hence, as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit of the allahabad development authority, the matter was placed before the vice chairman of the allahabad development authority, who was of the opinion that the bids submitted by the petitioners did not reflect the market value and he was further of the view that transparency had not been observed in the manner of disposal of the property. the vice-chairman, allahabad development authority, therefore, took a decision to invite fresh bids in which the petitioners can also participate.4. a perusal of the notification of allahabad development authority dated 18.4.2002. annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that one of the terms and conditions of the auction was that the vice chairman, a.d.a., can accept or reject any bid. in this case, the vice chairman, allahabad development authority was of the view that the bids of the petitioners did not reflect the correct market value and he has ordered for reauction, in which the petitioners can also participate.5. in monarch infra structure v. commissioner and ors., 2000 (3) awc 2.28 (sc) (noc) : 2000 (5) scc 287, it has been held in para 10 that the government can reject even the highest bid. thus, we find no merit in the writ petition. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 18th October, 2002, Annexures-5, 6 to 10 to the writ petition and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to issue allotment orders in favour of the petitioners in respect to plots in question in Shantipuram (Phaphamau) Awas Yojna, Allahabad, and not to re-auction the same.

3. From a perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioners were the only bidders of the plots they are claiming. Hence, as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit of the Allahabad Development Authority, the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority, who was of the opinion that the bids submitted by the petitioners did not reflect the market value and he was further of the view that transparency had not been observed in the manner of disposal of the property. The Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, therefore, took a decision to invite fresh bids in which the petitioners can also participate.

4. A perusal of the Notification of Allahabad Development Authority dated 18.4.2002. Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that one of the terms and conditions of the auction was that the Vice Chairman, A.D.A., can accept or reject any bid. In this case, the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority was of the view that the bids of the petitioners did not reflect the correct market value and he has ordered for reauction, in which the petitioners can also participate.

5. In Monarch Infra Structure v. Commissioner and Ors., 2000 (3) AWC 2.28 (SC) (NOC) : 2000 (5) SCC 287, it has been held in para 10 that the Government can reject even the highest bid. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Uma Kant Mishra and ors. vs Allahabad Development Authority a... Same Subject Civil Same Judge M. Katju and ;Prakash Krishna, JJ.

Civil