1 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases 2025:CGHC:60545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1225 of 2023 Haji Nagina (Kinnar) S/o Late Shri Kali Nayak Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Gurunanak Chowk, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh -Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, State Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Near Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipalities, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Chairman Municipalities, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh 6 - Gambhir Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri R.S. Thakur, Elderman, Municipalities, R/o Ward No. 5, Shivaji Ward, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.12.13 10:54:33 +0530 2 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases Respondent(s) AND WPC No. 1334 of 2023 Himanshu Shekhar Son Of Narsingh Paikara, Aged About 28 Years Resident Of House No. Lig-95, Housing Board Colony, Bhatapara Road, City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Nagar Palika Parishad, Balodabazar Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Collector, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 6 - The Tehsildar, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 7 - The District Treasury Officer, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) Respondent(s) AND WPC No. 1230 of 2023 Sumit Jaiswal S/o Shri Narayan Prashad Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Vasundhara Vihar H- 23 Godanpur Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 3 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Devlopment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balodabazar - Bhathapara District - Balodabazar - Bhathapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Office Of Municipal Council, Balodabazar District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chitawar Jaiswal (Chairman) S/o Omprakash Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years Municipal Council Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Gambhir Singh Thakur (Alderman Municipal Council Balodabazar) S/o Raghu Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 292, Ward No. 5 Veer Shivaji Ward, Near Shankar School Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhathapara Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) AND WPC No. 1228 of 2023 Smt. Krishna Gendle W/o Shri Ghanshyam Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Parsabahar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Office Of Municipal Council, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chitawar Jaiswal (Chairman) S/o Omprakash Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years Nill. 5 - Gambhir Singh Thakur (Alderman Municipal Council Balodabazar) S/o Raghu Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 292, Ward No.5 Veer Shivaji Ward, Near Shankar School Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner in WPC no. 1225/2023 : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Petitioner in WPC nos. 1228/2023 & 1230/2023 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Petitioner in WPC no. 1230/2023 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. GA For Municipal Council : Mr. Jitendra Pali & Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/12/2025 1. Since common facts and issue involved in all these Writ Petition, they are being considered together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No.1225 of 2023 are being referred. 5 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases 2. The present Writ Petitions assail the legality and validity of the Enquiry Report dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-9) submitted by the Committee, as well as the Auction Notice dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 4. By the impugned notice, Respondent No. 4 has re-initiated the auction process for allotment of shops in the commercial complex of the Municipal Council, Baloda Bazar. 3. According to the petitioners the Municipality, Baloda Bazar, by note- sheet dated 20.01.2022, resolved to conduct an auction for 30 shops situated in Ward No. 10, Mandi Road Commercial Complex (Khasra No. 187/01), the construction of which, admeasuring 1,13,435 sq. ft., had been completed by the Municipal Council. The allotment was to be undertaken through auction in terms of Section 150 of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Pursuant to the decision of the Councillors, Chairman and Aldermen, an Auction Notice dated 19.07.2022 was issued along with the list of shops. Thereafter, as the last date for submission of applications 19.08.2022 coincided with the festival of Krishna Janmashtami, an amended Auction Notice dated 18.08.2022 was published, retaining all other terms and conditions. The Chief Municipal Officer also sought police protection for the smooth conduct of the auction vide communication dated 22.08.2022. In response to the notices, a total of 134 bidders participated reservation-wise in the auction for 30 shops, and the Municipality received ₹6,75,000 towards application fees and ₹1,34,00,000 as earnest money; the petitioner too deposited ₹5,000 as application fee and ₹1,00,000 as earnest money. 6 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases The auction was held on 24.08.2022 and the list of highest and second- highest bidders was accordingly published. The respective petitioners have been declared as eligible candidates to the following shops:- WPC No. Shop No. Base price Offered Price 1225/2023 24 11,00,660/- 12,05,000/- 1228/2023 22 5,07,527/- 9,50,000/- 1230/2023 12 10,48,248/- 11,30,000/- 1334/2023 5 10,48,248/- 12,20,000/- 4. Despite the aforesaid facts, all of a sudden that too without any rhyme or reason, merely based on the complaint lodged by the private resondent namely; Gambhir Singh Thakur, alderman of the Municipal Council, the Respondent’s authorities initiated the proceedings and for the said purpose, the Collector constituted an enquiry team, who submitted their report holding that if the auction is conducted in a proper manner, the Municipal Council may fetch more money, and thereafter, the Municipal Council issued the re-acution process in respect of subjects shops in a illegal and arbitrary manner and that too without following the due process of law. Thus, these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the entire action of the respondents in re-initiating the auction process is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the settled principles governing disposal of municipal property. It is contended that the auction held on 24.08.2022 was conducted strictly in accordance with Section 150 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, after due publication of notices, participation of 134 bidders, and completion of all formalities, wherein the petitioners 7 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases were declared highest bidders for the respective shops. It is urged that there was no allegation of procedural violation, malpractice, favouritism or financial impropriety at any stage of the earlier auction, and therefore the subsequent initiation of an enquiry based solely on a complaint of one Alderman was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry report dated 10.10.2022 is perverse, vague and based on conjectures, merely stating that a “higher price may be fetched” if the auction is conducted again, which can never be a ground to unsettle a concluded and lawful auction. It is argued that the impugned re-auction notice dated 13.02.2023 is violative of the petitioners’ vested rights, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, and has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thereby infringing Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashment of the impugned re-auction notice and direct the respondent authorities to allot the shops to the respective petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the impugned actions are lawful, justified, and in the public interest. It is contended that complaints were received regarding alleged irregularities in the auction held on 24.08.2022, including insufficient competition, procedural lapses, and lack of transparency. Acting upon these complaints, the Collector was competent to constitute an enquiry committee, which examined the records and observed that the Municipal Council could potentially realize higher revenue if the 8 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases auction were conducted properly. It is urged that the committee’s report dated 10.10.2022 was a bona fide administrative recommendation aimed at safeguarding public funds and ensuring maximum financial return to the Municipality, in accordance with the statutory obligations under the Municipalities Act, 1961. Learned counsel further submits that no vested right had accrued to the petitioners merely by being declared highest bidders, as final allotment and execution of agreements had not taken place. The Municipal Council, therefore, issued the fresh auction notice dated 13.02.2023 to protect the public interest and ensure a transparent, competitive process. It is contended that these actions are administrative and policy decisions, taken in good faith, and do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Writ Petitions be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on records. 8. On careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of the parties, it is evident that the auction held on 24.08.2022 was conducted in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 150 of the Municipalities Act, 1961. The notice for the auction was duly published, adequate opportunity was given to bidders, including the petitioners, and 134 bidders participated in a transparent process. The petitioners were declared the highest bidders for the respective shops after payment of the requisite application fees and earnest money. There is no material 9 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases on record to suggest any procedural irregularity, malpractice, or arbitrariness in the conduct of the said auction. 9. It is an admitted fact that upon auction proceedings drawn by the authorities the petitioners and several persons participated in the process and since the petitioners have quoted higher price than the base price given by the Council. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have committed any illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid auction process. Once the petitinoers have been declared highest bidders, the same cannot be termed as illegal. 10. The subsequent initiation of an enquiry and issuance of a fresh auction notice dated 13.02.2023 was based solely on a complaint by one Alderman, Gambhir Singh Thakur, and the enquiry report merely observed that “a higher price may be fetched” if the auction is conducted again. Such conjectural observations cannot form the basis for setting aside a lawfully concluded auction in which the petitioners had participated and acquired vested rights. The enquiry report and the impugned auction notice, therefore, reflect an arbitrary exercise of power, lacking any statutory or legal justification, and infringe the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. 11. While the respondents contend that the actions were taken in the public interest to safeguard municipal funds, the law is well-settled that administrative convenience or potential financial gain cannot override vested rights acquired in a concluded and lawful process. No final 10 WPC No. 1225 of 2023 & connected cases allotment or agreement is required to validate the rights of the highest bidders once they have been declared and the process has been duly completed in accordance with statutory requirements. 12. It is the trite law that once a public auction for premises is concluded and confirmed (sale finalized), it generally cannot be set aside or reauctioned due to mere procedural glitches or subsequent higher offers; it stands unless there's material irregularity, fraud or collusion that vitiated the sale process, ensuring sanctity of auctions. 13. In view of the above, the actions of the respondents in re-initiating the auction process and issuing the impugned notice dated 13.02.2023 are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned Enquiry Report dated 10.10.2022 and re-auction Notice dated 13.02.2023 are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate steps to allot the respective shops to the petitioners pursuant to the auction dated 19/07/2022 as the petitioners being declared higest bidders, at the earliest possible, preferrably within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri