HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. versus ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. versus ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.

There was no concluded contract or vested right accrued to the plaintiff as highest bidder, since no allotment letter was issued. The Administrator had authority, duly delegated by HUDA under section 51(1), to reject bids including the plaintiff's. Rejection was based on due application of mind, considering relevant reports and preservation of public revenue. Mandatory injunction could not be granted in absence of a concluded contract.

Parties
Appellant: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.; Respondent: Orchid Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court set aside; first appellate court's judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Auction, Tender, Rejection of Bid, Delegation of Power, Mandatory Injunction
Contract Law Administrative Law Public Auctions Auction Tender Rejection of Bid Delegation of Power Mandatory Injunction

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Appellant

Orchid Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of the highest bid by the Administrator of HUDA was valid and proper
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff acquired any right or vested right by being the highest bidder and depositing 10% bid amount
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to issuance of formal allotment letter and mandatory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There was no concluded contract or vested right accrued to the plaintiff as highest bidder, since no allotment letter was issued. The Administrator had authority, duly delegated by HUDA under section 51(1), to reject bids including the plaintiff's. Rejection was based on due application of mind, considering relevant reports and preservation of public revenue. Mandatory injunction could not be granted in absence of a concluded contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court set aside; first appellate court's judgment restored.

Orders

  • Plaintiff directed to pay ad valorem court fee not only before trial court but also before High Court.
  • Plaintiff/respondent to deposit costs of Rs.5 lakhs: Rs.2.5 lakhs each in Advocates' Welfare Fund and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Fund within two months.