[2025:RJ-JP:40408] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18549/2024 Bhawani Industries, GA 206, RIICO Industrial Area, Gangapur City, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Rajasthan Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sang Limited, Nehru Sehakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saransh Saini, Adv. with Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain, Adv. with Ms. Vinny Jain, Adv. & Mr. Praveen Purohit (for the respondent No.2) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 06/10/2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be accepted; the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and: (i) By issuance of appropriate Writ order or direction bid cancellation order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure 5) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) By issuance of appropriate Writ order or direction, the Respondents be directed to allot the Plot No. F-234-235, Saloda RIICO Industrial Area, Gangapur City, to the [2025:RJ-JP:40408] (2 of 5) [CW-18549/2024] Petitioner in pursuance to the auction held on dated 21.08.2024. (iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner." 2. As per brief facts of the case, the respondent No.2-Rajasthan Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sang Limited has invited e-auction for sale of the land situated at RIICO industrial area, Tilam Sangh Gangapur City Unit. E-auction was conducted on 21.08.2024 and the petitioner deposited the pre-bid Earnest Money Deposit Amount (EMD) @ Rs.20,00,000/- and the petitioner was declared as highest bidder with an amount of Rs.22,81,00,000/-. On an early occasion also, the same plot was put to auction and one M/s. C.R. Infra Projects Private Ltd. was declared as highest bidder with the an amount of Rs.16,30,00,000/-, which was accepted and approved by the respondents vide letter dated 26.07.2023, however, M/s. C.R. Infra Projects Private Ltd. failed to pay the balance amount, therefore, the plot was put to auction again and now, the present petitioner is the highest bidder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being the highest bidder, petitioner was waiting for acceptance of his bid for last almost two months but he did not receive any communication from the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that ultimately, after 50 days from date of the auction, the respondents sent an email to the petitioner on 14.10.2024 regarding cancellation of bid without assigning any reason or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 has issued an e-auction notice dated 16.09.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:40408] (3 of 5) [CW-18549/2024] in 'Dainik Navjyoti' newspaper regarding again e-auction of the plot in question, which is scheduled to be held on 07.10.2025 and the same is detrimental to the interest of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be allowed and cancellation order of bid dated 14.10.2024 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allot the plot in question in favour of the petitioner. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argues that as per the conditions of e-auction, acceptance/rejection of the highest bid received in the e-auction was subject to the approval of High Powered Committee constituted by the State Government, however, the said Committee did not approve the same in its meeting held on 10.10.2024 and rejected bid of the petitioner, therefore, no right or interest in favour the petitioner has been created because of the non-approval by the said committee. Learned counsel further argues that in case of any dispute with regard to e-auction, any person feeling aggrieved by the auction, there is a provision of filing first appeal before the Administrator, Tilam Sangh, Rajasthan and second appeal before Principal Secretary to the Government, Cooperative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and also, there is an arbitration clause in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, the present petitioner without availing any of the [2025:RJ-JP:40408] (4 of 5) [CW-18549/2024] abovementioned alternative remedies available to him in accordance with law, has filed the present petition and the same is not maintainable. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Mahadev Stone Crusher Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17666/2024). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Admittedly, as per the conditions provided for e-auction, acceptance/rejection of the highest bid received in the e-auction was made subject to the approval of High Powered Committee constituted by the State Government, therefore, without approval and acceptance of the bid by the High Powered Committee, no right or interest has been created in favour of the petitioner and as per Clauses 7.13 and 8.2 of e-auction invitation notice, aggrieved party has been given alternative remedies of filing appeals as well as opportunity of arbitration has also been provided under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner without availing any of the aforementioned alternative remedies available to it in accordance with law, has preferred the present writ petition, therefore, the same is not maintainable. [2025:RJ-JP:40408] (5 of 5) [CW-18549/2024] 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find it just and proper to allow the present petition and to quash and set aside the cancellation order of bid dated 14.10.2024. 11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and any other pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /305-S.