Nothing amiss in HSVP policy of not disclosing reserve price: Punjab and Haryana High Court


Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 23

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that nothing was amiss with the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) coverage of not disclosing the reserve value of plots to bidders in the course of the public sale course of. The HSVP stand within the matter was that the reserve value was by no means disclosed in accordance with the coverage, dated June 16, 2020, for “causes of confidentiality”.

The Division Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra was additionally informed that non-disclosure of the reserve value was to stop “collusion at any stage between the potential bidders and any official of the respondent authority or some other particular person”.

The matter was dropped at the discover of the Excessive Courtroom with the submitting of two petitions in opposition to the HSVP and different respondents. The important query earlier than the Bench within the petitions was whether or not the petitioners/highest bidders within the auctions for plots could possibly be denied allotment on the grounds that their bids didn’t match the reserve value fastened by HSVP and different respondents although the identical was not disclosed on the time of inviting the bid or previous to it within the commercial.

Taking over the matter, the Bench noticed that it was not the petitioners’ case {that a} counter-offer was not made by the respondents to them to match the reserve value after which the plots could be allotted to them.

The Bench asserted: “As regards the essential subject of the upper bid not being accepted because it didn’t match the undisclosed reserve value, we’ll discover no purpose to agree with the petitioners in view of the coverage to the impact that the reserve value is just not disclosed for confidential causes and to make sure a clear means of allotment by way of e-auction”.

The Bench added that even “mala fides” couldn’t be attributed to the respondents in its opinion in view of the truth that a counter-bid was made to the petitioners to match the reserve value. As such, the petitioners couldn’t be heard saying that the rejection of their bids was solely to favour some other particular person.

“It is usually to be noticed that the bids in all such circumstances have been made on a base value settled by the respondent authority, which isn’t the reserve value; and we discover nothing flawed with the coverage in view of the target to be achieved by it, particularly with a counter-offer to be first made to the best bidder,” the Bench concluded, whereas disposing of the petitions.

“To stop collusion”

The Division Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra was additionally informed that non-disclosure of the reserve value was to stop “collusion at any stage between the potential bidders and any official of the respondent authority or some other particular person”.



Supply hyperlink

By Samy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.