TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allotment of land on lease, for a period of 30 years. The land was admeasuring 163176 sq. ft. situated in Scheme No.1A (CommercialcumResidential Use), Neemuch. The Notice Inviting Tenders ("NIT" for short) was published in the daily newspapers, viz., Nai Duniya, Dainik Bhaskar, Free Press and Dashpur Express. Respondent No.1, which is a registered partnership firm along with other bidders had submitted the tender thereby giving an offer of Rs. 5,81,00,106/. It had also deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 47,00,000/. The bids of the participants were opened in presence of the representatives of all the bidders. The bid of respondent No. 1 herein was found to be highest. 4. The appellant issued a letter dated 27.09.2008 thereby informing respondent No. 1 that its bid was accepted. Respondent No.1 was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,45,25,050/, i.e., 25% of the bid amount within a period of seven days. Respondent no.1 in accordance therewith deposited the aforesaid amount on 01.10.2008. 5. It appears that an objection was raised by two members of the Municipal Council under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act before the Collector with regard to the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... save in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) (a) the Chief Municipal Officer may, in his discretion, grant a lease of any immovable property belonging to the Council, including any right of fishing or of gathering and taking fruits, flowers and then like, of which the premium or rent, or both, as the case may be, does not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees for any period not exceeding twelve months at a time: Provided that every such lease granted by the Chief Municipal Officer, other than the lease of the class in respect of which the PresidentinCouncil has by resolution exempted the Chief Municipal Officer from compliance with the requirements of this proviso, shall be reported by him to the PresidentinCouncil within fifteen days after the same has been granted. (b) with the sanction of the PresidentinCouncil, the Chief Municipal Officer may, by sale or otherwise grant a lease of immovable property including any such right as aforesaid for any period not exceeding three years at a time of which the premium, or rent, or both, as the case may be, for any one year does not exceed one thousand five hundr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded in writing, transfer any immovable property to a bidder other than the highest bidder: Provided also that for any such transfer by lease a reasonable premium shall be payable at the time of granting the lease and annual rent shall also be payable in addition during the total period of the lease." 11. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 3 of the said Rules would reveal, that no immovable property which yields or is capable of yielding an income shall be transferred by sale, or otherwise conveyed, except to the highest bidder at a public auction or by inviting offers in a sealed cover. The proviso thereof provides that if the Corporation is of the opinion that it is not desirable to hold a public auction or to invite offers in sealed covers, the Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, effect such transfers without public auction or inviting offers in sealed covers. The second proviso also provides that the Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer any immovable property to a bidder other than the highest bidder. 12. It is thus amply clear that, no land, exceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decisionmaker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decisionmaking power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention'". 15. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decisionmaking power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of "Wednesbury Unreasonableness" or unless it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect. 17. It could thus be seen that an interference by the High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law, i.e., when the error is apparent on the face of the record and is self evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice. 18. In the light of the aforesaid principles, let us examine the facts of the present case. Undisputedly, in the present case, before inviting the bids, prior approval of the State Government as is required under Section 109 of the said Act was not taken. It appears, that only after the tender process was finalized and the Municipal Council ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has authorised the Commissioner for transferring the land in question. The said communication specifically states that if the proposal submitted by the Municipal Council was not agreeable to the Commissioner then while invalidating the proposal by the Municipal Council, he may give order for initiation of proceedings afresh. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication dated 18.05.2010, the order impugned herein is passed by the Commissioner dated 03.07.2010. 21. The Commissioner in the Order dated 03.07.2010 has found that the bids were not found to be competitive. He further found that the NIT was published only in two Hindi newspapers and as such there was no sufficient competition. He has, therefore, rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council and while doing so, returned back the same with the direction to invite the tenders again and get the NIT published in at least one National level English newspaper and one State level Hindi newspaper. 22. The situation that emerges is thus. Initially the Municipal Council, Neemuch, invited tenders for allotment of the said land on lease for 30 years. This was done without taking prior approval of the State Government as in required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the subsequent communication reveals that the Commissioner had pointed out the infirmities in the proposal of the Municipal Council and advised the State Government to reject the said proposal with a direction to the Municipal Council to invite fresh tenders. On the objection of the Commissioner, the State Government re18 examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to exercise powers under Section 109 of the said Act to take appropriate decision, including rejecting the proposal and directing the process of retendering. 24. It could thus be clearly seen that, the Commissioner, instead of blindly accepting the directions contained in the communication dated 21.12.2009, has acted in larger public interest so that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue. Not only this, but the State Government, after the Commissioner pointing out anomalies to its notice, has reexamined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders including invalidating the tender process and directing initiation of fresh tender process. In the background of this factual situation, the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the act....