1 2026:CGHC:26862-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2824 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Jha S/o Late Bilat Jha Aged About 51 Years R/o H2-24 Chauhan Town, Junwani Road, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai Through Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K.Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2 India, has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the illegal act of the concerned respondent in the form of returning the earnest/caution money to petitioner and thereby deemed cancellation of bid of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 10 Shivaji Nagar Residential Scheme Bhilai. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondents to allot the Plot No. 10 and conduct necessary process for transferring the plot after taking remaining amount from the petitioner at the earliest. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pass any order deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 2, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai, issued an NIT bearing No. 2066/4/R.V./2025 Bhilai on 09.10.2025 inviting applications for allotment of plots including the residential plots situated in the area of Shivaji Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg. The petitioner submitted his online application and also deposited 10% amount of offset price (Rs.47,142/- each) in respect of Plot Nos. 9 and 10 respectively. In the portal of concerned respondent, the application of the petitioner was shown as ok and his bid of Rs.7,21,000/- for Plot No.9 and of Rs.7,05,000/- for Plot No.10 was shown to be in first place. Thereafter no notice was ever sent to the petitioner and all of the sudden his earnest money deposited in respect of Plot No. 10 (Tender No. 3 177369) was returned without assigning any reason. However, no such coercive step was taken by the concerned respondent in respect of Plot No.9. 4. Mr. T.K.Jha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before returning the caution/advance money of the petitioner, without giving any notice to the petitioner stating/assigning the reason behind it for returning the caution/advance money, amounts to cancellation of his bid which is against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner being the highest bidder was hopeful that he would be allotted the plot but without assigning any reason, his offset price has been returned. The respondent No. 2 cannot act arbitrarily and cancel the entire NIT without there being any reason for the same. Because of the such conduct of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has suffered financial losses as in anticipation of allotment of the plot, the petitioner got a borewell constructed over the plot for which he had offered the highest price. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on a three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathod v. The Chief Executive Officer {2024 INSC 486}, another judgment of the Apex Court in Golden food products India v. State of U.P. {2026 INSC 22}. 5. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the contesting party in this case would be the respondent No. 2 as the NIT was floated by the respondent No. 2. 6. Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 2, Bhilai Municipal Corporation (Bhilai Nagar Nigam), is a statutory local self-government body duly 4 constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The respondent-Corporation is entrusted with the administration, governance and development of the municipal area falling within its territorial jurisdiction and is responsible for providing civic amenities and municipal services, including regulation of building activities, maintenance of public infrastructure, sanitation, public health, water supply, taxation and implementation of various welfare and developmental schemes. The Corporation functions through its elected representatives and administrative machinery headed by the Commissioner and exercises such powers and performs such duties as are conferred upon it under the applicable municipal laws and regulations. The respondent No. 2 has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the applicable statutes, rules, regulations and governmental directions issued from time to time. The Corporation has discharged its statutory obligations in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner and has not committed any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide action or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. Mr. Agrawal submits that all actions undertaken by the respondent- Corporation have been in accordance with law, in public interest and within the scope of powers vested in it under the relevant statutory provisions. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non- allotment of a plot pursuant to a tender-cum-auction process initiated by the respondent No. 2. A bare perusal of the NIT would reveal that clause 5 thereof specifically reserves the right to accept or reject any tender/proposal, either wholly or partly, and to make modifications thereto. Further, clause 29 of the terms and conditions of the tender 5 specifically provides that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, shall be entitled, at his discretion, to accept or reject any bid/proposal, wholly or partly, without assigning any reason whatsoever, and to alter or modify the terms thereof. The said clause further stipulates that the decision of the Commissioner in this regard shall be final and binding upon all concerned parties. The aforesaid conditions formed an integral part of the tender document and were accepted by all participating bidders, including the petitioner. Having consciously participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions and having deposited the earnest money pursuant thereto, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the authority of the respondent No. 2 to exercise powers expressly reserved under the tender conditions. More particularly, once the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been refunded, no enforceable right survives in favour of the petitioner to seek allotment of the subject plot as a matter of right. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Mr. Agrawal further submits that during the course of the auction proceedings, the entire process was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam, 1994. The proceedings conducted by the respondent No. 2 were duly recorded in the relevant note sheets and official records maintained in the ordinary course of business. The records clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was found to be an eligible bidder and was declared the highest bidder in respect of the concerned plot. However, the status of being the highest bidder did not, by itself, confer any vested or indefeasible right to obtain allotment, which remained subject to statutory approvals and 6 compliance with the applicable rules and conditions governing the auction process. On 31.12.2025 the respondent No. 2 furnished a detailed communication to the Collector, District Durg, explaining that subsequent to the issuance of the tender notice dated 09.10.2025 and commencement of the live e-auction proceedings on 17.11.2025, there had been a revision in the Collector Guideline Rates governing the market value of land. It was further informed that the offset price for the auction had originally been fixed after enhancing the then prevailing Collector Guideline Rate by 20%. The highest bids received in the auction proceedings were thereafter placed before the Mayor- in-Council, which, in its meeting dated 01.12.2025, passed resolution No. 21. Subsequently, the General Body of the Corporation, vide Resolution No. 5(3) dated 23.12.2025, unanimously resolved that the highest bids received in respect of the plots be placed before the competent authority, namely the Collector, District Durg, for consideration and approval in accordance with law. In view of the revision of the market value guidelines, the Collector, District Durg, sought clarification from the respondent No. 2 regarding whether the bid amounts received in the auction proceedings were higher than the revised guideline values. In response thereto, the respondent No. 2 informed the Collector that in respect of 15 plots, the highest bids received were above the revised guideline rates, whereas in respect of certain other plots the bid amounts were lower than the revised market value guidelines. Thereafter, upon due consideration of the matter and pursuant to the approval and directions issued by the learned Collector on 09.01.2026, it was decided that insofar as the plots where the bid amounts were lower than the revised guideline values were concerned, a fresh auction process be undertaken. 7 Simultaneously, it was directed that the earnest money deposits of the participants in the auction proceedings be refunded. The said decision was taken in public interest, with a view to safeguarding public revenue and ensuring compliance with the applicable statutory framework. During the process of auction there was change in the market value guidelines and therefore, the fresh auction could not take place and subsequently Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam, 1994 was amended and new rules, namely, Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam, 2026 has come into force on 10th June 2026 and therefore, all the proceedings have to be done in accordance with the Rules of 2026. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever prayed in this petition and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. The controversy involved in the present petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner participated in an e-auction initiated by the respondent No.2 for allotment of residential plots. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in respect of Plot No.10, no letter of acceptance or allotment was ever issued in his favour. The earnest money deposited by him was subsequently refunded after the competent authority decided not to proceed with the allotment in respect of certain plots. 11. The principal submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Corporation could not have returned the earnest money and thereby cancelled the bid without assigning any reason or affording an opportunity of hearing. According to him, such action is violative of the principles of natural justice. We are unable to 8 accept the aforesaid submission. 12. A bidder participating in a public auction does not acquire any vested or indefeasible right merely because his bid happens to be the highest. Unless the competent authority accepts the bid and communicates such acceptance, no concluded contract comes into existence. The highest bid only entitles the bidder to have his offer considered in accordance with the governing statutory provisions and the terms of the tender. In the present case, clause 5 of the Notice Inviting Tender as well as clause 29 of the terms and conditions specifically reserve to the Commissioner the authority to accept or reject any bid, wholly or partly, without assigning any reason. These conditions constituted part of the tender document and were accepted by every participant, including the petitioner, without any demur. Having participated in the auction with full knowledge of these stipulations, the petitioner cannot now contend that the respondent was denuded of the very power expressly reserved under the tender conditions. After completion of the auction proceedings there was a revision of the Collector Guideline Rates. The respondent-Corporation placed the matter before the competent authority. Upon examination, it was found that in respect of certain plots, including the plot in question, the highest bids received were below the revised guideline value. Consequently, acting on the directions issued by the Collector, District Durg, the Corporation resolved to conduct a fresh auction in respect of such plots so as to protect public revenue, and simultaneously refunded the earnest money to the participating bidders. The decision was thus founded upon a relevant and germane consideration and cannot be characterised as arbitrary, mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations. 9 13. It is well settled that in matters relating to award of contracts and public auctions, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the commercial decision itself. Unless the action of the authority is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, actuated by mala fides or contrary to statutory provisions, the Court would be slow to interfere. No such circumstance has been demonstrated by the petitioner. 14. The judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner do not advance his case. The principles laid down therein operate in their own factual context. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has neither arbitrarily accepted another person's bid nor deviated from the prescribed procedure. The decision to cancel the proposed allotment and undertake a fresh auction was taken uniformly in respect of all similarly situated plots where the revised guideline value exceeded the highest bid received, with the object of safeguarding public interest and protecting public revenue. We also find no merit in the submission founded on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice. Where the tender conditions themselves reserve to the authority the discretion to reject the bid and no civil consequence flows from rejection of an offer which had never culminated into a concluded contract, an individual pre-decisional hearing is not an indispensable requirement. More so, when the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has already been refunded and no prejudice of a legal nature has been caused. 15. It is equally significant that no enforceable legal right accrued in favour of the petitioner merely because he emerged as the highest bidder. In the absence of acceptance of his bid, the petitioner cannot seek a 10 relief directing allotment of the plot. Such a relief would amount to compelling the respondent-Corporation to enter into a contract, which is impermissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Though the petitioner has pleaded that he had got a borewell constructed on the land in anticipation of allotment, such an act, even if assumed to be true, was entirely at his own risk and peril. No permission, allotment order or authority issued by the respondent entitled him to enter upon or undertake any activity on the land. Any expenditure allegedly incurred by the petitioner on the basis of his own expectation cannot create a legal right against the respondent-Corporation. 16. We may also observe that the petitioner appears to be pursuing a claim founded more on expectation than on any enforceable legal right. Once the competent authority, for valid administrative reasons and in larger public interest, decided not to accept the bid and refunded the earnest money, the petitioner ceased to have any subsisting legal grievance capable of enforcement under Article 226 of the Constitution. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is intended for enforcement of legal and fundamental rights and not to compel the State or its instrumentalities to conclude contracts contrary to public interest or the governing statutory framework. In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the decision-making process suffers from no infirmity warranting interference. 17. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.02 19:44:32 +0530