Summary
A municipal land bidder challenged rejection of a lease proposal and an order for fresh tenders with wider publicity. The Court held that the High Court had overlooked subsequent State correspondence authorising the Commissioner to reconsider and reject the proposal. Concerns about inadequate competition and possible collusion supplied a rational public-interest basis for re-tendering. The bidder’s writ relief was set aside, with refund and interest directed.
Issues
- Whether the Commissioner was authorised to reject the municipal lease proposal.
- Whether directing a fresh tender process justified interference in judicial review.
Provisions considered
- Section 109(3), proviso (ii), Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961The land transaction required prior State sanction; subsequent correspondence authorised the Commissioner to decide the proposal, including rejection and re-tendering. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Rule 3, Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994The statutory auction framework informed the requirement for competitive disposal of income-yielding public property, subject to prescribed State-sanction exceptions. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Judicial review of administrative tender decisions addresses legality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, rather than substituting the court’s view of the preferable decision. A rational public-interest decision cannot be displaced merely because the court would assess its merits differently. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25)
- The High Court relied on an earlier State communication while ignoring later reconsideration and express authority permitting the Commissioner to invalidate the proposal. His rejection therefore fell within the authority actually conferred. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Limited publicity, only four bidders and concern about a cartel justified wider national and State publicity to improve competition and revenue. On this record the Commissioner acted as custodian of public property, and no ground for judicial interference was established. (¶¶ 19, 21, 24, 25)
Result
The appeals were allowed without costs. The High Court’s writ and review orders were set aside and the bidder’s writ petition dismissed. The Municipal Council was directed forthwith to refund the deposited amount with interest at six per cent per annum.