Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Have The Public Auction Concluded In His Favour: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Have The Public Auction Concluded In His Favour

Case: State of Punjab vs. Mehar Din

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka

Case No.: CA 5861 OF 2009

Court Observation: “This Court has examined right of the highest bidder at public auctions in umpteen number of cases and it was repeatedly pointed out that the State or authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. In the present case, no right had accrued to the respondent even on the basis of statutory provisions as being contemplated under Rule 8(1)(h) of Chapter III of the Scheme of Rules, 1976 and in terms of the conditions of auction notice notified for public auction”

This being a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal.

Previous Posts

Section 173 CrPC – Magistrate Should Consider Initial Report & Supplementary Report Conjointly to Decide Whether to Proceed Against Accused: Supreme Court

Article 226 – Writ Of Mandamus Virtually Granting Specific Performance Of Contract/Work Order Cannot Be Issued: Supreme Court

PIL Litigation Alleviated Conditions Of Citizens; But Thousands Of Frivolous PILs being Filed: Supreme Court

Section 34 IPC Not Attracted When Final Outcome or Offence Committed is Distinctly Remote and Unconnected with Common Intention: Supreme Court

Position Of Claimant Post Accident Relevant Factor To Determine Compensation Under Head Of Loss Of Amenities & Happiness: Supreme Court

Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It: Supreme Court Download Judgement