1 2026:CGHC:27336-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3419 of 2026 Rashmi Agrawal W/o Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o House No - B/87, Amrapali Vanchal City, Industrial Estate, Bhilai District- Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shobhi Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.03 15:51:36 +0530 2 the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and set-aside and direct the respondent authorities to execute the lease deed after receiving the consideration amount in accordance with law in the interest of justice and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within such outer limit as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in light of facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 Alternatively, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the cancellation process of the tender if any done by the respondents in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State and respondent No. 2 that in an identical matter, this Bench had disposed of WPC No. 2824 of 2026 (Santosh Kumar Jha vs. State of 3 Chhattisgarh & Another) vide order dated 01.07.2026, observing as follows : “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 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 speciically 4 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 ide or actuated by extraneous considerations. 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 ides or contrary to statutory provisions, the Court would be slow to interfere. No such circumstance has been 5 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 ind 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 lows 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 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 6 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.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPC No. 2824 of 2026, this 7 petition may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPC No. 2824 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 2824 of 2026. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in WPC No. 2824 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan