2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Horil Gope, resident of Village-Chhotki Dhamrai, P.O.-Tilaiya Dam, P.S.-Jainagar, District- Koderma. …. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Finance, having office at 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Ministry of Finance, P.O. & P.S.-Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited (Government of India undertaking) through its Chairman & Managing Director (CMD) having Corporate Headquarters at 87, M.G. Road, Fort, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Azad Maidan, Mumbai-400001. 3. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (Government of India Undertaking) having office at B.P. Agrawal Building, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad. 4. The Salvage Bids, H2, Office No.303, 3rd Floor, Apra Northex Plaza, P.O. & P.S.-Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi-110034, through Shri Prem Roy, proprietor. 5. Shri Kishor Kumar Jha, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, having office at House No. 8525, Near Hotel Haryali Complex, Pokhannatilha, B.N. Jha Path, B. Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District-Deoghar. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate For Resp. No.1: Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Sr. P.C. For Resp. Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 21.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel who appears with Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, learned Senior Panel Counsel for 1st respondent and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondent. 2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 2 2. The petitioner challenges the non-acceptance of his bid at the e-auction conducted by the 4th respondent in pursuance of e- auction notice at Annexure-2 to the petition. 3. Mr Tandon, relying upon Clause 3 of the Instructions to the participants, submits that the petitioner was admittedly the 2nd highest bidder at the auction, having submitted a bid of Rs. 14,62,500/-, when the reserve price was only Rs. 13 lakhs. He submitted that H1 had admittedly defaulted after making a bid for Rs. 35 lakhs for the salvaged vehicle. He submitted that under such circumstances, the 4th respondent was duty bound to allot the salvaged vehicle to the petitioner by accepting his bid. He submitted that the reason set out in the communication dated 1st July, 2026 for not accepting the petitioner’s bid was ex-facie unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 4. Mr Tandon relied on Golden Food Products India Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 24 to submit that expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction cannot be the reason to cancel the auction held in accordance with law. 5. Mr Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondent submitted that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to get the best possible price for the salvaged vehicle. He submitted that H1 had submitted a bid for Rs. 35 lakhs and the petitioner, a bid for Rs.14,62,500/-. Considering the gap, additional quotations were invited by the 4th respondent, and commercial offers in an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs (basic) + GST (gross Rs. 18,88,000) were obtained. 2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 3 6. He submitted that upon realising that the material value of the salvaged vehicle is materially higher than the petitioner’s bid and in the interest of securing fair market realisation of the salvage, a decision was taken to re-auction. At the same time, opportunity was given to the petitioner to continue at the bidding with the revised reserve price of Rs.16 lakhs (basic). He submitted that the petitioner has however declined to participate and has instituted this petition. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar also referred to the e-auction terms which entitled the cancellation of the process or rejection of bids without assigning any reasons. He submitted that, however, in the present case, there were cogent reasons and therefore, there was no unreasonableness or arbitrariness involved. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. Regarding the facts, there is not much dispute. The highest bidder in this case had quoted Rs. 35 lakhs for the salvage. The petitioner, who was the next highest bidder, had quoted Rs. 14,62,500/-, which was above the reserve price of Rs. 13,00,000/-. 10. Further, the records show that H1, after submitting the bid, did not participate any further in the bidding process. As a result, the earnest money deposit of H1 was forfeited. 11. Instruction No. 3 in the e-auction notice, relied upon by Mr Tandon, reads as follows:- “3. Upon approval, the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the purchaser/bidder will be retained and subsequently adjusted or transferred directly to the 2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 4 seller at the time of final material lifting. The EMD shall be forfeited if the purchaser fails to honor the agreement or declines to proceed with their bid. In the event that the highest bidder fails to proceed, the second-highest bidder will be eligible to proceed with the bid. Should the second-highest bidder also fail to proceed, the third-highest bidder (H3) will be allowed to proceed with their bid. The EMD will be forfeited if a bidder fails to proceed with their respective bid when it is their turn.” 12. The above instructions merely render H2 eligible to proceed with the bid. However, this instruction nowhere guarantees that H2’s bid will be accepted, no matter what. 13. The record, including in particular, communication dated 1st July, 2026 addressed to the petitioner shows that the petitioner was informed that mere eligibility does not guarantee acceptance of the petitioner’s bid which is subject to the insurer’s final approval under Clause 6 which provides that the surveyors/insurers hold the final authority to accept or reject the outcome of the bidding exercise, without obligation to provide any reason for their decision. 14. Though it could be argued that the clause which states that no reason may be provided reflects arbitrariness or unreasonableness, in the present case, we are satisfied that cogent reasons have been provided. The 4th respondent carried out the exercise of inviting additional quotations independently. This included a formal commercial offer from M/s S.K. Enterprises dated 29.06.2026 for a gross offer of Rs. 18,88,000/-. Based on such material, it was concluded that 2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 5 the updated market evidence indicates a value materially higher than the petitioner’s bid of Rs. 14,62,500/-. 15. Therefore, in the interest of securing fair market realisation of the salvage, this subsequent information/material was taken into consideration, and, based thereupon, it was decided to increase the base/reserve price for the next round of bidding to Rs. 16 lakhs (basic), and that the salvaged disposal process would proceed on that basis. 16. Full opportunity was granted to the petitioner to bid in the next round of bidding with the base/reserve price of Rs. 16,00,000/- (basic). However, the petitioner chose not to avail of this opportunity but insisted that since his bid of Rs. 14,62,500/- was more than the reserve bid price of Rs. 13 lakhs, the salvage should be knocked down to the petitioner. 17. In the peculiar facts of this case, we do not detect any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. Ultimately, it is the duty of the respondents to obtain the best possible price for the salvage. If bona fide efforts were made in that direction, it is not appropriate that the writ Court interdicts such efforts. Considering the manner in which the respondents have proceeded in the matter and the material which was available with the respondents for deciding to increase the base/reserve price, we do not think that there has been any violation, either of the instructions or of any constitutional principle. 2026:JHHC:21561-DB p. 6 18. The decision in the Golden Food Products India (supra) proceeded on a different set of facts. The observation that mere expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction cannot be the reason to cancel an auction held in accordance with law, while indisputable, will have to be read and construed in the context of the facts involved in the decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this case, the action of the respondents, far from eroding the credibility of the auction process, has applied its mind to the material on record before concluding that the value of the salvage was materially higher than the petitioner’s bid. Unlike in the case of Golden Food Products India (supra) there was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness involved in the decision of the respondents. 19. For all the above reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition and consequently dismiss the same without any order as to costs. 20. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 21, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 24.07.2026