20.08.2026 SL No.1 Court No.12 (gc/Sandip) FMA 901 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Citystar Infraprojects Limited & Anr. Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui, Ms. Sanskriti Agarwal …..for the Appellants. Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shounak Mitra, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Alquaderi, Ms. Akshita Bohra, Ms. Mahashree Ghosh ….for the Respondents. 1. The appeal arises out of an interim order dated June 23, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.A. 12673 of 2026. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Court held that the cancellation of the tender without affording any reason, after opening the bids of the participants, was improper. Considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience, His Lordship was of the view that the impugned communication before His Lordship dated March 11, 2026, by which the tender process was cancelled should be stayed and the property sought to be auctioned should not be dealt with. 3. According to His Lordship, the arguments of the appellants with regard to the right to fix the Reserve 2 Price on the basis of a Memorandum of the Finance Department after the bids were submitted, required a deeper consideration upon exchange of affidavits. 4. The writ petitioners were the highest bidders. They quoted a bid of Rs.375 Crores. The starting bid price as per the Notice For e-Auction was Rs.292.94 Crores. The e-Auction was cancelled. The writ petitioners approached His Lordship challenging the order of cancellation on the ground of arbitrariness. As an answer to the query of the writ petitioners in an application under the Right to Information Act, 2006, the SPIO of HIDCO informed the writ petitioners that the quoted amount of Rs.375 Crore was less than the Reserve Price for plot no.IIG measuring about 12.329 acres. The Reserve Price was fixed by the P&AR Department, Government of West Bengal. For such reason, the e-Auction was cancelled by HIDCO. 5. Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the writ court could not have interfered with the decision of the tendering authority. No right had been created in favour of the highest bidder. The highest bidder did not have any right to the property. The e-Auction for sale of Government land could be held without fixing any Reserve Price. It was entirely within the domain of the tendering authority to cancel the e-Auction, and proceed for a fresh auction. The 3 non-disclosure of the Reserve Price in the Notice For e- Auction was not an arbitrary action. Such disclosure would amount to apprising the bidders of the minimum price which the land would fetch. The bidding would be in and around the said price, thereby foreclosing the chance of selling the land at a higher price than what was reserved. 6. Mr. Gupta submits that the Notice For e-Auction clearly provided that the highest bid would be accepted, provided the same was more than the Reserve Price. Although, the tender document did not provide any Reserve Price, but under Memo No.2084- F(Y) issued by the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch, dated April 27, 2023, the administrative department under which HIDCO functions i.e., the P&AR Department, had the right to inform the Reserve Price to HIDCO, after the bidding process was over, but before the bids were opened. If the bids were found to be lower than the Reserve Price, the highest bid was not required to be considered. 7. Mr. Gupta further submits that the writ petition should not have been entertained at all, as no right had vested on the writ petitioners. 8. Mr. Arindam Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners submits that the entire action of the 4 appellants was arbitrary. Neither the Reserve Price, nor the value at which the surrounding lands were sold, had been disclosed. Under such circumstances, His Lordship did not err in directing filing of affidavits as factual issues were required to be brought on record. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The scope of adjudication in this appeal is limited. The issues before us are, whether the learned Trial Judge was right in granting the interim order prohibiting further dealing with the land in question by directing affidavits to be exchanged and while doing so, whether His Lordship was justified in staying the operation of the letter of cancellation. 10. Admittedly, although the Notice For e-Auction provided that the highest bid should be more than the Reserve Price fixed for the plot, we do not find any clause in the said Notice For e-Auction which provided that, as per the Memo of the Finance Department, the P&AR Department would communicate the Reserve Price after the bids were received. Thus, the bidders proceeded on the basis that the starting price of Rs.292.94 crores was the Reserve Price. Thereafter, purportedly on a communication from the P&AR Department, after all the bidders submitted their bids, HIDCO cancelled the e-Auction on the basis of such 5 communication. The Reserve Price was higher than Rs.375 Crore. On this ground, the e-Auction process was cancelled. The submissions of Mr. Gupta are, prima facie, contrary to Clause 27.1 of the Notice For e-Auction, which is quoted below:- “27.1.The allotment of plot would be made in favour of a single successful bidder who has quoted highest rate above start price and who has been found to have fulfilled all conditions of allotment as stated in these documents, after the approval of the State Government is obtained.” 11. We also find from the first paragraph of the Notice For e-Auction which is quoted below, that the bidders were informed vide such e-Auction that the highest bid should be higher than the Reserve Price fixed for the plot. This, in our prima facie view, presupposes that the Reserve Price must have been fixed prior to the e-Auction notice. The first paragraph is quoted below:- “The allotment will be made to the bidder bidding the highest bid in such e-Auction process provided that the highest bid so obtained is higher than the Reserved Price fixed for the plot. Any change in land use pattern will not be allowed. Construction should be started within 1(one) year from the delivery of possession and construction may be completed within 5 years. There will be a pre-bid meeting at Conference room, 3rd floor, 6 HIDCO Bhawan, Premises No.35-1111, Biswa Bangla Sarani, 3rd Rotary, New Town, Kolkata – 700156 on 30.01.2026 at 15.00 Hrs.” 12. Under such circumstances, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of His Lordship. Coming to the issue of balance of convenience and inconvenience, we find that Rs.375 Crore has been quoted by the highest bidder, which was much higher than the start price. Whether the Memo of the Finance Department would come into operation in this case, will be decided by His Lordship upon exchange of affidavits. Whether the Notice For e-Auction permitted the cancellation in the above manner, by relying on the Memo of the Finance Department, will also be decided by His Lordship. Moreover, the prices at which the surrounding lands were sold, being the foundational basis of the purported Reserve Price, should be disclosed by an affidavit. The copies of the deeds/allotment letters indicating the consideration, will be placed before His Lordship. 13. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of His Lordship. It is well-settled that, all observations at the interim stage are tentative and the writ petition will be heard on its 7 own merits, upon HIDCO filing the affidavit-in- opposition. If the lands are sold in the meantime, the situation will become irreversible. In the event the writ petitioners succeed, they will not be in a position to claim the property, as third party rights will be created 14. The time to file affidavit-in-opposition is extended by three weeks from date. 15. Time to file affidavit-in-reply is extended by a week thereafter. 16. The interim order already passed by His Lordship is extended up to disposal of the writ petition. 17. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 18. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)