123-CWP-17232-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17232-2026 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Pankaj Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Vinod Polist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. ..… JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral) Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the subsequent e-auction Notice dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in respect of Plot No. 1119-A on the ground that the earlier e-auction process pursuant to Notice dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) stood validly concluded with the petitioner as the highest bidder and also a further direction is sought to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to finalize the allotment of Plot No. 1119-A in favour of the petitioner as the highest bidder in the earlier auction pursuant to notice dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) within a stipulated period. PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 123-CWP-17232-2026 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 2 and 3/ Town Improvement Trust, Patiala, whereby e-auction was conducted on 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and, before the said auction was concluded, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the earnest amount with the Town Improvement Trust. Receipt dated 06.11.2025 of the same is enclosed as Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner participated in the bid in which he was the highest bidder, but respondent/Town Improvement Trust did not issue any allotment letter to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of issuing any allotment letter to the petitioner, respondent/Town Improvement Trust initiated further process of auction of the same plot i.e. Plot No. 1119-A by way of another e-auction vide notice dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-2). The bid auction was conducted on 30.03.2026 afresh in which allotment was made in favour of some other person. Learned counsel further submitted that grievance of the petitioner is that there was no reason for the respondent/Town Improvement Trust to have a re-auction of the plot once the petitioner was the highest bidder. Hence, a direction may be issued to respondent/Town Improvement Trust to allot the plot to the petitioner and, in case it has been allotted to some other person, the petitioner be allotted an alternative plot. PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 123-CWP-17232-2026 4. On the other hand, Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent/Improvement Trust, submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner is misplaced. Learned Senior counsel submitted that, in fact, when the earlier auction was conducted on 10.11.2025, the petitioner did participate in the auction process but he was never issued any allotment letter because the conditions mentioned therein were not fulfilled. Regarding the said fact, learned Senior counsel has referred to paragraph 3 of the terms and conditions of Annexure P-1 dated 08.10.2025, which was the notice of the e-auction in which the petitioner had participated wherein it was so provided that it was necessary for at least three bidders to participate in any property bid and only then the bid would be considered. Learned counsel submitted, on instructions, that in the present case, less than 03 bidders had participated and, rather, it was only the petitioner who had participated in the bid. In respect of the same, he referred to the Auction Log Details (Annexure P-4) wherein it was only the petitioner who had participated. Therefore, since the basic condition which was the condition precedent for further processing auction thereof, was not fulfilled, there was no occasion for the respondent/Improvement Trust to have issued the allotment letter to the petitioner and in this way, respondent/Improvement Trust, thereafter, re-auctioned the plot on 30.03.2026 in which the auction had already been completed and plot had been allotted to the 3rd person. The petitioner filed the present petition after the aforesaid auction was PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 123-CWP-17232-2026 conducted and did not implead any other successful bidder as party who had direct interest involved in the matter. 5. Learned Senior counsel submitted that once the condition which was necessary, which is so incorporated in paragraph 3 of Annexure P-1 was not fulfilled, the petitioner has got no vested right to claim any kind of allotment letter. He further submitted that in the absence of any allotment letter in the name of the petitioner, no right is vested with the petitioner in this regard. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed by the petitioner. 7. The e-auction, in which the petitioner participated vide Annexure P-1 was conducted on 10.11.2025. Relevant condition vide paragraph 3 is reproduced below: - ‘3. It is necessary for at least three bidders to participate in any property bid, only then the bid will be considered. Apart from this, if only three bidders are registered for bidding on a property, then all three bidders should not be from the same family. In such a case, those bidders will not be qualified for bidding on that property/their bid will be cancelled.’ 8. Perusal of the aforesaid would show that it is the condition precedent that at least three bidders should participate. It was specifically stated by learned counsel for respondent/Improvement Trust, especially by referring to Annexure P-4, that there was only one bidder and it was only the petitioner who was the bidder. PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 123-CWP-17232-2026 9. During the course of arguments, this Court specifically raised a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether only the petitioner had participated or whether anybody else had also participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the petitioner actively participated in the bid, whereas other four persons had registered but did not bid. Therefore, it becomes very clear that it was only the petitioner who had participated in the bid, therefore it was hit by the aforesaid paragraph 3. 10. Not only this, fresh auction had been conducted on 30.03.2026 whereas present petition has been filed on 06.05.2026 after the fresh auction was conducted wherein 3rd party rights have been created and the plot itself had been allotted. The petitioner has, therefore, come to this Court at a belated stage after the fresh auction was conducted and 3rd party rights had been created and the person to whom the plot has been allotted is not even a party in the present petition and on this ground also we find that no case is made out. 11. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) 16.07.2026 JUDGE preeti i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document