ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

There was no material to show that the tender price was low; the reserve price was fixed based on relevant and comparable sales and factors; tender price exceeded reserve price; no arbitrary or unreasonable concessions shown; the scheme was upheld as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Anil Kumar Srivastava; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA); Respondent: DLF Universal Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Disposition
Outcome
dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Auction, Judicial Review, Reserve Price, Valuation, Article 14 Constitution of India
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Contract Law Property Law Public Auction Judicial Review Reserve Price Valuation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Kumar Srivastava

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)

Respondent

DLF Universal Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tender price quoted by respondent No. 3 was understated
  2. 2 Whether respondent No. 2's decision in accepting the bid of respondent No. 3 was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Board resolution dated 10-7-2003

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material to show that the tender price was low; the reserve price was fixed based on relevant and comparable sales and factors; tender price exceeded reserve price; no arbitrary or unreasonable concessions shown; the scheme was upheld as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal and transferred writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Respondent No. 3 directed to pay respondent No. 2 the balance 75% of the premium in terms of letter of allotment dated 12.4.2004 within one week from pronouncement of judgment.