1 2025:CGHC:53807-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1886 of 2024 1 - Amarnath Gupta S/o Kedarnath Gupta, Aged About 47 Years R/o Maruti Life, Kota Road, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Girish Panjwani, S/o Bhagchand Panjwani, Aged About 36 Years R/o General Stores, Lig-37, Block -3, Indirawati Colony, Rajatalab, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raipur Development Authority, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Krishna Education Society, A Society Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, Having Its Registration No. 13607, And Having Its Registered Office At Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Through Its President Namely Shri Madan Mohan Tripathi, S/o P.S. Tripathi, Aged About 80 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.07 10:41:51 +0530 2 5 - Krishna Public School Kamal Vihar, Through Its Director Namely Ashutosh Tripathi, S/o. Madan Mohan Tripathi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. 72/4-5, Nehru Nagar, (East) Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Kumar Goswami, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.2&3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.4&5 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 04.11.2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have preferred the following reliefs:- “i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to C.E.O. R.D.A. Raipur that the memorandum no. 88 dated 02.01.2024 of Rajsva Adhikari (Tahsildar) R.D.A. Raipur is to be set-aside are to be quashed and issued of allotment letter for plot no. A-130F, Sector 11 of R.D.A. Raipur. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction to the respondent no. 2 & 3 for issuing a allotment letter to petitioners for allotting a plot no. A-130F, Sector 11A, 3 Kaushalya Mata Vihar Yojna of Raipur, Development Authority Raipur and they may further be directed to allot a said plot to petitioners. iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deemed to fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the tender dated 08/10/2023 for selling vacant plot, the petitioners participated in the tender process along with other bidders including the respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein. According to the petitioners, they quoted the price of Rs.4555/- per sq. ft and also deposited the security amount of Rs. 545840/- in favour of the C.E.O., RDA by demand draft dated 23/10/2023. Learned counsel submits that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have also submitted their bid wherein they quoted the price of Rs.2710/- per sq ft. Learned counsel would submit that no bidder has quoted higher price than the offer quoted by the petitioners. Subsequently, after opening of the price bid and after knowing about the rate quoted by the petitioners, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 approached the respondent authorities and offered their price @ Rs.4600/- per sq ft., despite the fact that initially in the tender process they quoted their price @ Rs.2710/- per sq ft, whereas the petitioners quoted @ Rs.4555/- per sq ft and as such, the 4 authorities ought to have allotted the plots in favour of the petitioners. However, by letter dated 22/11/2023, the authorities asked the petitioners to appear in their office on 23/11/2023 for negotiation wherein the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 & 5 appeared, however, the matter could not be settled. In the meanwhile, the respondents authorities by the communication dated 02/01/2024, Annexure P-1 cancelled the tender process stating therein that it is not in terms of Clause 12 of the tender condition. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents/RDA is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, the petitioners have quoted the higher price of bid and also deposited the requisite security amount in the form of demand draft, despite the said fact, without following the due process of law and without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned memo has been issued which is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are operating the educational institution and as per the policy of the State Government, educational institutions should be given 5 preference in allotment of the land. He would submit that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are requesting the authorities for allotment of the subject land so that the main entrance to the school would not be affected. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From bare of the material available on record, it is quite vivid that in the tender process dated 08/10/2023 for selling vacant plot, the petitioners as also the respondents No.4 & 5 participated wherein the petitioners quoted the price of Rs.4555/- per sq. ft and deposited the security amount of Rs. 545840/- in favour of the C.E.O., RDA. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 have quoted the price of Rs.2710/- per sq ft. Thus, it is manifest that the offer quoted by the petitioners is highest. Only after opening of the price bid the respondents No.4 & 5 approached the RDA and offered Rs.4600/- per sq.ft. in place of their earlier offer of Rs.2710/- per sq.ft. In the meanwhile, talks took place between the parties and subsequently all of a sudden by the impugned communication Annexure – P/1 the tender process has been dropped mentioning therein that clause 12 of the tender condition has not been followed in its true perspective. 6. On going through the tender form Annexure P/7 it is apparent that clause 12 of the tender document speaks 6 about " रण ल प लख / प प !" # $ प आ प& ' (", whereas clause 22 empowers the RDA to accept the bid or not. It reads thus: “ ) # रण # !* अ!* र अ र, ", पल अ र, रप"र रण, उ .र अ * अ र र$( /$ ऐ उ1 23 $ 45 $5 ". 7. Even while passing the impugned communication the respondent authorities have not mentioned the proper details and the same has been issued in a mechanical and cavalier manner that too without following the basis principles of natural justice and without affording due opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2009 14 SCC 690 held thus:- “15. the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice.” 9. It is the well settled proposition of law that no orders 7 causing civil consequences can be passed, without observing rules of natural justice. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an individual suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. It is also trite laws that if any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil principles of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, impugned memorandum dated 02/01/2024 is set aside. The respondent/RDA is directed to pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep