Nothing amiss in HSVP policy of not disclosing reserve price: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 23

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that nothing was amiss with the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) policy of not disclosing the reserve price of plots to bidders during the auction process. The HSVP stand in the matter was that the reserve price was never disclosed in accordance with the policy, dated June 16, 2020, for “reasons of confidentiality”.

The Division Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra was also told that non-disclosure of the reserve price was to prevent “collusion at any level between the prospective bidders and any official of the respondent authority or any other person”.

The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court with the filing of two petitions against the HSVP and other respondents. The essential question before the Bench in the petitions was whether the petitioners/highest bidders in the auctions for plots could be denied allotment on the grounds that their bids did not match the reserve price fixed by HSVP and other respondents even though the same was not disclosed at the time of inviting the bid or prior to it in the advertisement.

Taking up the matter, the Bench observed that it was not the petitioners’ case that a counter-offer was not made by the respondents to them to match the reserve price after which the plots would be allotted to them.

The Bench asserted: “As regards the basic issue of the higher bid not being accepted as it did not match the undisclosed reserve price, we will find no reason to agree with the petitioners in view of the policy to the effect that the reserve price is not disclosed for confidential reasons and to ensure a transparent process of allotment via e-auction”.

The Bench added that even “mala fides” could not be attributed to the respondents in its opinion in view of the fact that a counter-bid was made to the petitioners to match the reserve price. As such, the petitioners could not be heard saying that the rejection of their bids was only to favour any other person.

“It is also to be observed that the bids in all such cases were made on a base price settled by the respondent authority, which is not the reserve price; and we find nothing wrong with the policy in view of the objective to be achieved by it, especially with a counter-offer to be first made to the highest bidder,” the Bench concluded, while disposing of the petitions.

“To prevent collusion”

The Division Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Justice Lalit Batra was also told that non-disclosure of the reserve price was to prevent “collusion at any level between the prospective bidders and any official of the respondent authority or any other person”.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.