TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Mumbai ('Said Property') by the Respondent No.2 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). This challenge is on the ground that the same is arbitrary and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (b) the fresh auction of the said property as proposed in newspaper advertisement dated 12.5.2018 issued by Respondent No.2. 2. This petition was first moved on 23.5.2018 before this Court. At that time, Petition was adjourned to 11.6.2018 but the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) were not restrained from proceeding with the fresh auction of the said property but prohibited from confirming the same. At the same time, the Petitioner was permitted to participate in the auction and make his bid without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said property on terms and conditions annexed thereto with the reserve price being fixed at Rs. 30 Crores. On 21st September, 2017, the Petitioner submitted its bid at Rs. 30.20 Crores along with earnest money deposit of Rs. 7.5 Crores and caution money of Rs. 5 Lakhs by way of Demand Draft along with the other documents. On 22.9.2017 the bids were to be opened and on that day it was found that the Petitioner was the only bidder offering price of Rs. 30.21 Crores i.e. above the reserve price of Rs. 30 Crores. (c) Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not accept the bid. This was for the reason that the Petitioner had itself offered Rs. 32.11 Crores in respect of the said property prior to holding of the auction. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmation of its bid. Thus on 12.4.2018 itself the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 returned the Demand Drafts of Rs. 7.5 Crores and 5 Lakhs to the Petitioner. (g) Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 on 4.5.2018 issued impugned letter cancelling auction sale dated 22.9.2017 to the Petitioner. (h) On 12.5.2018 the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued a fresh notice for public auction of the said property which was published by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the newspapers inviting offers for the said property with reserve price fixed at Rs. 31.10 Crores. The date of the auction of the said property was scheduled to take place on 30.5.2018 as published in the above advertisement. 5. As pointed out above the Petitioner moved the Court on 23.5.2018. However, no a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have set out the events leading to this Petition on consideration of both the Petition and the additional affidavit in reply for and on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. We note that the invitation to make bids issued by the Respondent No.2 issued in September, 2017 in its invitation to offer itself provides in Clause 16 thereof that the Respondent No.2 reserves its right to reject any tender form, any bid including highest bid, without assigning any reason. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that notwithstanding the above clause in the invitation to make bids for the said property, action of the State cannot be arbitrary and it would be subject to judicial review even in case of auction by the State. We do not dispute the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.07 Crores after giving appropriate discount for proposed invocation of DCR of Greater Mumbai, 1991 in respect of the said property. It was in the aforesaid context that the decision was taken to cancel the auction held on 22.9.2017 by the impugned letter dated 4.5.2018. Therefore, in the present facts, it cannot be said that action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned letter dated 4.5.2018 is arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the question to be posed as laid down by the Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd (Supra) has to be, in these facts in the negative. Thus caselaws cited on behalf of the Petitioner would not be applicable in the present facts as from perusal of the addit....