CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 Civil Writ Petition No.10494 of 2026 Date of decision: July 2nd, 2026 Ashok Chaudhari .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 109 Civil Writ Petition No.10495 of 2026 Sunder Jindal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 110 Civil Writ Petition No.10520 of 2026 Shafiq Ahmed .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 113 Civil Writ Petition No.12053 of 2026 Kanchan Mishra .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur and Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 2 VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present order would dispose of four writ petitions i.e. CWP-10494-2026 titled as Ashok Chaudhari Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP-10495-2026 titled as Sunder Jindal Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP-10520-2026 titled as Shafiq Ahmed Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP-12053-2026 titled as Kanchan Mishra Versus State of Haryana and others, as common question of law and facts arise in all the said four cases. 2. With the consent of learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents, CWP-10494-2026 is being taken as the lead case and the facts are being noticed from the same. In the said writ petition, following prayer has been made: “It is most respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Writ order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-11/Pg по. 61-63) and representation dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-13/Pg no. 65-68) praying for withdrawal of the arbitrary rejection of highest bid submitted by the petitioner qua the industrial plot in IMT Faridabad by contravening the decision of the Board of Directors in 377th Meeting held on 22.06.2023 (Annexure P-4/Pg no. 32-33), in a time bound manner and as expeditiously as possible, in the interest of justice. (ii) A writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside impugned communication dated 23.10.2025 PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 3 (Annexure P-10/Pg no. 60) whereby the highest bid submitted by the petitioner against the Plot No. 784, Sector-69, IMT Faridabad has been rejected arbitrarily, illegally and against the decision of the Board of Directors taken in 377th Meeting held on 22.06.2023 as per which the bid was required to be accepted on automated mode, in the interest of justice. (iii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the highest bid received from the petitioner against the Industrial plot in category measuring 8500 sqm in IMT Faridabad as accepted and issue Regular Latter of Allotment in favour of the petitioner. (iv) For issuance of directions to respondents for restraining further auction/re-auction of the industrial plots in question. (v) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. (vi) To exempt the petitioner from filing certified and typed copies of Annexures.” 3. It is stated that similar prayers have been made in the other petitions. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that E- auction with respect to five plots was conducted on 29.08.2025 by respondent No.3-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. It is submitted that the five plots measured either 7600 square metres, 8500 square metres or 8900 square metres. It is submitted that the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 4 present writ petitions pertain to the plots which measure 7600 and 8500 square metres. It is further submitted that for all the sizes of the plots, the reserve price which was fixed was 36,000/- per square meter and the four ₹ petitioners in the present four writ petitions were the highest bidders with respect to four plots i.e. Plot No.784, Sector 69, IMT, Faridabad, measuring 8500 square metres (CWP-10494-2026 Ashok Chaudhari), Plot No.253, Sector 68, IMT, Faridabad, measuring 8500 square metres (CWP-10495- 2026 Sunder Jindal), Plot No.84, Sector 68, IMT, Faridabad, measuring 7600 square metres (CWP-10520-2026 Shafiq Ahmed) and Plot No.502, Sector 68, IMT, Faridabad, measuring 7600 square metres (CWP-12053- 2026 Kanchan Mishra). It is submitted that the entire process was carried out in accordance with law and till date neither any complaint regarding the same has been filed by any person, nor any person has made any offer stating that he is ready to pay higher price than the bid made by the petitioners. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure P-4) of the Board of Directors of the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. It is submitted that the said decision is with respect to the plot size categories above 8100 square metres and the cases of the petitioners in CWP-10494-2026 and CWP-10495-2026 are fully covered by the said decision. The relevant portion of the decision which has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is reproduced hereinbelow: b) For plot size categories above 8100 sq.mtr. (2 acre) - The PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 5 following shall be the two case types for determination of auction outcomes depending on the number of applications received: (A) Where the number of plots put to auction is less than one-half of the number of applications registered for the auction subject to a minimum of 5 registrations/applications/EMDs, then the reserve price shall be calculated as per extant procedure. The bids shall be auto approved where the H1 bid is above the reserve price subject to the condition that at least 5 incremental bids have been received. (B) Where the number of applications registered is less than twice of the number of plots proposed to be put for auction, H-1 bids equal to or higher than 75% of the weighted average auction rate for plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr., shall be accepted/approved in auto mode; other H-1 bids. be rejected in auto mode. For both (A) and (B), where no plot is advertised/auctioned in the category indicated at 'a' above (plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr.), the previous auction (plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr.) in the same financial year be considered. In case, no such reference rate is available, Managing Director of the Corporation shall be the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. Where only one application is received, such cases be placed before the Higher Level Plot Allotment Committee/Empowered Executive Committee (EEC) for a decision. Where the interest expressed in industrial plots of size above 8100 sq. mtrs. is low as compared to the number of plots available for allotment/auction, then replanning of such area/plots into smaller size plots for which demand exists be considered, keeping in view feasibility. The Board further authorized the Managing Director to take necessary steps in the matter. Endst. No.HSIIDC:2023/6463 Dated: 21.07.2023” 5. It is submitted that similarly with respect to plot size categories PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 6 of more than 2000 square metres but upto 8100 square metres, a similar decision had been taken on 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) by the said Board of Directors, and the cases of the petitioners in CWP-10520-2026 and CWP-12053-2026 are squarely covered by the said decision. The relevant portion which has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is reproduced hereinbelow: “b) For plot size categories of more than 2000 sq.mtr. but upto 8100 sq.mtr. (2 acre) - The following shall be the two case types for determination of auction outcomes, depending on the number of applications received: (A) Where the number of plots put to auction is less than one-half of the number of applications registered for the auction subject to minimum of 5 registrations/applications/EMDs, then the reserve price shall be calculated as per extant procedure. The bids shall be auto approved where the H-1 bid is above the reserve price subject to the condition that at least 5 bids have been received. It should be noted that if any registered applicant does not participate in the bidding process then the provision as in (ii) above 1.e. forfeiture as non-participation charge shall be applied. (B) Where the number of applications registered is less than twice of the number of plots proposed to be put for auction, H-1 bids equal to or higher than 75% of the weighted average auction rate of 'a' above (plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr.), shall be accepted/approved in auto mode; other H-1 bids be rejected in auto mode. For both (A) and (B), where no plot is advertised/auctioned in the category indicated at 'a' above (plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr.), the previous auction (plot size categories of upto 2000 sq.mtr.) in the same financial year be considered. In case, no such reference rate is available, Managing Director of the Corporation shall be the competent authority to take a decision in the matter.” PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 7 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the detailed recommendation made by the Estate Management Committee, comprising of six officials, in favour of the petitioners. The said recommendation has been annexed as Annexure P-8 along with the writ petition. From the said recommendation, it has been highlighted that the criteria which have been considered in paragraph 8 are the criteria which have been formulated in the meetings dated 22.06.2023 and 29.12.2022, reference of which has already been made. It is further stated that in clause 10, after considering all the aspects, it was recommended by the Estate Management Committee that the H-1 (highest bid) in respect of all the five plots of IMT Faridabad be accepted. It is submitted that however, thereafter the Managing Director, who is the competent authority, had not accepted the same on the ground that out of the five plots, one plot which is of a bigger size, had received a much higher bid than the other four plots which are smaller in size and had thus submitted that to his mind, re-auction of these four plots is a viable option. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said decision is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Golden Food Products India Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported as 2026 AIR Supreme Court 335, in which it has been held as under: “32. An auction process has a sanctity attached to it and only for valid reasons that the highest bid can be discarded in an auction which is otherwise held in accordance with law. If a valid bid has been made which is above the reserve price, there should be a rationale or PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 8 reason for not accepting it. Therefore, the decision to discard the highest bid must have a nexus to the rationale or the reason. Merely because the authority conducting the auction expected a higher bid than what the highest bidder had bid cannot be a reason to discard the highest bid. In the instant case, no other party had placed a bid higher than the appellant herein. There was no infirmity in the conduct of the auction. No other party had complained about the process of auction conducted by the GDA respondent No.2. The bid offered by the appellant herein was the highest and above the reserve price. In the circumstances, the said bid ought to have been accepted by GDA - respondent No.2 rather than cancelling the same without notice to the appellant herein. Hence, the cancellation of the bid submitted by the appellant herein is quashed. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 24.05.2024 and 15.07.2024 passed in the respective writ petitions are set-aside. The appellant is directed to re-deposit the earnest money preferably within four weeks from today. Within two weeks from the date of the re-deposit of the earnest money, the GDA - respondent No.2 shall make an order of allotment of the subject plot in favour of the appellant herein and take all consequential steps for concluding the auction process in favour of the appellant herein. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.” 8. It is argued that even in the present case, no other party had placed a higher bid than the present petitioners and there was no infirmity in the conduct of the auction and no person has made any complaint against the process of the auction conducted by the authorities and even the bid made by PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 9 the petitioners was above the reserved price and thus, in the said circumstances, the highest bid should not have been rejected. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Annexure P-14 is an allotment letter by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation issued on 30.05.2025 in which the plot measuring 10729.50 square metres has been allotted at the rate of 35,900 per square metre which is lesser than the bid made by the ₹ petitioners. Annexure P-15 is stated to be the allotment letter dated 03.06.2025 issued by the same Corporation, where the rate has been stated to be 37,100 per square metre with respect to a plot measuring 8527.07 square ₹ metres. It is submitted that even the said price is similar to the bid offered by the petitioners. It is further submitted that once due advertisement had been made, it would be a completely futile exercise to re-auction the property and not to confirm the bid of the highest bidder and would also entail unnecessary expenses. It is further submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, the competent authority should have followed the decision of the Board of Directors which provides for auto approval. 10. On 22.04.2026, a coordinate Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Present: Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** Counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide impugned order, Annexure P10, the highest bid given by the petitioner for an industrial plot at IMT PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 10 Faridabad (8500 sqm category), has been cancelled in violation of the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 22.6.2023, Annexure P4. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Golden Food Products India Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2026 (2) SCR 47, she contends that merely because the auctioning authority was expecting a higher bid, cannot be a ground for discarding the bid given by the petitioner. On an advance notice, Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. He states that petitioner has moved a representation and has been granted a hearing on 16.3.2026, Annexure P12. Не submits that a final decision is likely to be taken in near future. On his request, list on 29.04.2026.” 11. On 29.04.2026, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the State. However, a final decision has not been taken as yet. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the above submissions and also in view of the law laid down in the case of Golden Food Products India (supra), the competent authority i.e. the Managing Director, HSIIDC, would reconsider the entire matter and would take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioners or their representatives. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said decision be taken in a time bound manner and till the time the said decision is taken, the respondents be restrained from auctioning the four plots in question. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10494 of 2026 and other connected cases 11 grant of the interim order should be up till the decision is taken. 15. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the following observations/directions: (i) Respondent No.3-Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, who is admittedly the competent authority, would reconsider the matter in the light of the facts which have been noticed by this Court and also after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Golden Food Products India (supra) and also after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. (ii) Till the time the said decision is taken, the respondents are restrained from auctioning the four plots in question. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE July 2nd, 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.06 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh