Public auction bids create no vested right without formal confirmation; earnest money may still be refundable with interest.

A highest bid in a public auction does not create a vested right to purchase unless the bid is formally accepted and the sale is confirmed. Where the auction terms require further acceptance steps before the balance payment stage, no concluded contract arises from deposit of earnest money alone, and the bidder cannot compel transfer or insist that an enhanced offer be accepted. If confirmation never occurs, however, refund of the earnest money is warranted, and prolonged retention of the amount can justify interest from the date of deposit until refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners acquired a vested right to confirmation of the auction sale of the property. (ii) Whether the authorities could be directed to accept the petitioners' enhanced offer and complete the sale. (iii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the earnest money with interest.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners acquired a vested right to confirmation of the auction sale of the property.

Analysis: The petitioners were the highest bidders and had deposited earnest money, but the sale was never formally confirmed. The governing auction terms required acceptance of the bid and further steps before the balance payment stage could arise. In the absence of confirmation, no concluded contract came into existence and no vested right to insist on transfer of the property accrued.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities could be directed to accept the petitioners' enhanced offer and complete the sale.

Analysis: The decision whether to accept or reject the bid remained with the competent authority under the auction conditions. Given the long lapse of time and the need to obtain the best current market value, the authority was justified in preferring a re-auction. The court declined to compel acceptance of the enhanced offer.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the earnest money with interest.

Analysis: Since the bid was not confirmed and the petitioners had been kept out of the transaction for many years, refund of the deposited amount was warranted. The prolonged delay justified an award of interest from the date of deposit until refund.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to enforcement of the auction sale, but they were entitled to refund of the earnest money with interest, and the writ petition stood disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A highest bid in a public auction does not by itself create a vested or enforceable right to purchase unless the bid is formally accepted and the sale confirmed; in the absence of such acceptance, the authority may refuse confirmation and order refund with appropriate relief.

---