2026 INSC 22 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18095-18096 of 2024)

GOLDEN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been filed against the following

impugned final orders passed by the Allahabad High Court:

a) Final order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Writ C No.17883/2024

(for short, “Impugned Order No.1”); and

b) Final order dated 15.07.2024 passed in Writ C No.20059/2024

(for short, “Impugned Order No.2”),

whereby the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions.

2

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Ghaziabad

Development Authority (“GDA”) – respondent No.2 herein had

advertised the allotment of various plots through an auction dated

25.08.2023, including an industrial plot bearing Plot No.26,

Madhuban Bapudham Yoj ana, Ghaziabad, measuring an area of

3150 square metres (“the plot”, in question). The auction was

conducted through a two-bid system – a ‘technical bid’ and a

‘financial bid’.

4. On 02.02.2024, the appellant submitted separate technical and

financial bids. In the financial bid, the appellant submitted an offer

of Rs.25,920/- per square metre, and deposited a demand draft of

Rs.80,64,000/- as earnest money. On 14.03.2024, the GDA -

respondent No.2 notified the appellant that their technical bid had

been approved. Subsequently, on 15.03.2024, an open auction was

conducted in which the reserve price of the plot was fixed at

Rs.25,600/- per square metre. There were only two bidders in the

auction, including the appellant. The appellant submitted a bid of

Rs.29,500/- per square metre, which was the highest, and was thus

declared the highest bidder.

3

5. Thereafter, on 25.04.2024, the appellant preferred a

representation addressed to the Vice-Chairman of the GDA -

respondent No.2, requesting issuance of an allotment letter for the

said plot. On not receiving any reply, the appellant filed an RTI

Application bearing Diary No.33697/RTI/2024, asking GDA -

respondent No.2 to furnish internal note sheets and memos of the

appellant’s bid. However, upon going to the office of GDA - respondent

No.2 to inspect the same, they found that the GDA - respondent No.2

had cancelled the allotment. Thereafter, on 22.05.2024, the GDA -

respondent No.2 officially notified the appellant that they had

cancelled their financial bid and announced that a fresh auction

would take place for the plot.

6. According to the GDA - respondent No.2, upon comparing the

price received for the plot in question with the prices received for

“similar properties” under the Madhuban Bapudham Yojana in the

financial year 2023-24, it found that the following prices were

received:

4

Type of

Property

Area (in

square

metre)

Reserve Price

(per square

metre)

Date of

Sale

Selling Price

(per square

metre)

Industrial Plot 131.90 Rs.25,600/- 25.08.2023 Rs.83,500/-

Industrial Plot 123.83 Rs.25,600/- 25.08.2023 Rs.82,000/-

Industrial Plot 123.92 Rs.25,600/- 25.08.2023 Rs.82,000/-

Industrial Plot 132.20 Rs.25,600/- 25.08.2023 Rs.1,21,000 /-

7. Therefore, since it noticed that “similar properties” in the same

scheme had received substantially higher prices than offered by the

appellant in its bid, the auction committee recommended cancelling

the appellant’s bid in order to conduct a fresh auction. This decision

was approved by the Vice-Chairman of GDA - respondent No.2.

Following this, the appellant was notified of the decision and its

earnest money deposit was refunded.

8. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court

through Writ C No.17883/2024, seeking a writ of mandamus

directing the GDA - respondent No.2 to issue an allotment letter in

favour of the appellant and also execute a sale deed with respect to

the plot. By Impugned Order No.1 dated 24.05.2024, the High Court

dismissed the Writ Petition, taking on record the submission of the

5

GDA - respondent No.2 that the appellant’s financial bid was lower

than the bids for other plots in the same scheme and holding that the

appellant cannot claim an “indefeasible right” to insist upon the

execution of a sale deed in its favour.

9. The appellant again approached the High Court through Writ C

No.20059/2024, seeking that the letter dated 22.05.2024, by which

the GDA - respondent No.2 informed them of the non-acceptance of

their financial bid, be quashed. In addition, the appellant sought

directions to issue an allotment letter in its favour, as well as execute

a sale deed in respect of the plot. By Impugned Order No.2 dated

15.07.2024, the High Court held that in the absence of a challenge to

its order dated 24.05.2024, the same had attained finality as the

appellant had not preferred any modification or review of the same.

In addition, letter dated 22.05.2024 was sent prior to the order dated

24.05.2024 and leave was granted to the appellant to participate in a

fresh auction conducted by the GDA - respondent No.2. Therefore,

the said Writ Petition was deemed to be misconceived and hence

dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred SLP (C) Nos.18095-

18096 of 2024, before this Court, challenging Impugned Order Nos.1

6

and 2, which have been converted into the Civil Appeals that arise for

our consideration.

Submissions:

10. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri Sanghi for the

appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. We have perused

the material on record.

11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Sri Sanghi submitted

that the respondents arbitrarily cancelled the appellant’s bid on the

ground that the quoted rate was allegedly lower than the rates fetched

for smaller plots of different dimensions in the same scheme .

However, this ground was not mentioned in the auction brochure and

was only disclosed after the appellant filed multiple RTI applications.

The RTI replies reveal that the appellant’s technical bid was valid and

that his price bid was the highest. The decision to cancel the bid for

“low rates compared to smaller plots” was an extraneous and

arbitrary consideration.

12. The appellant also submitted that the replies to his RTI

applications establish that he had complied with all tender conditions

7

and had validly deposited the required earnest money. The

cancellation of the appellant’s bid amounts to rewriting the tender

after the bids were opened, which is not permitted in law. It is

contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary, for

a statutory authority to cancel a valid bid on grounds that were not

mentioned in the auction brochure. That comparing the appellant’s

bid with dissimilar plots (which were smaller) amounts to imposing

new tender conditions after the auction. Our attention was drawn to

the decision of this Court in Eva Agro Feeds (P) Ltd. vs. Punjab

National Bank, (2023) 10 SCC 189 (“Eva Agro Feeds”) in which a

two-judge bench of this Court (B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,

JJ.) held that “…mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher

price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise

valid auction and go for another round of auction. Such a cause of

action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also

erode the credibility of the auction process itself”. The appellant

submitted that this principle applies in the present case, where the

auction was cancelled arbitrarily because of a ground that was not

provided in the brochure.

8

13. The RTI responses show that an adjacent plot of the same

scheme was allotted without any benchmarking against smaller plots.

Further, they show that the GDA - respondent No.2 allotted several

plots above 2000 square metres at prices only marginally above the

reserve price. In contrast, the appellant’s bid was a full 15.23% above

the reserve price (Rs.29,500/- as against Rs.25,600/-). Therefore, the

respondent’s treatment of the appellant was inconsistent, selective

and arbitrary.

14. The appellant further submitted that the High Court, in its

impugned orders, failed to appreciate the difference between an

‘indefeasible right to allotment’, and the ‘right to fair and non-

arbitrary treatment’. In the present case, the respondents cancelled

the allotment without a show-cause notice or hearing, which violates

the principles of natural justice. It was contended that simply

returning the earnest money deposited cannot legitimise an arbitrary

cancellation.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

participation in a tender or auction does not confer any vested/

9

enforceable right to obtain the bid. Unless the auctioning authority

accepts the bid and communicates the same, the highest bid is only

an offer, which is revocable at the authority’s discretion. In this case,

no letter of acceptance or allotment was ever issued to the appellant.

On the contrary, the earnest money deposit was returned, thereby

extinguishing any semblance of a contractual relationship. The

appellant cannot compel the execution of a sale deed. The reasons for

cancellation were also communicated, which means that the decision

was not arbitrary.

16. Further, the respondents also submitted that judicial review in

matters pertaining to tender processes is limited. In this regard, our

attention was drawn to the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this

Court in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply &

Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1 , wherein it was observed

that “courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the

tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In

fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and

public sector undertakings in matters of contract”.

10

17. It was submitted that following from this principle, the

respondent’s decision to cancel the action was based on objective

considerations (the prevailing market rates and the need for

safeguarding public revenue). Comparable plots in subsequent

auctions had obtained significantly higher prices and therefore the

decision to re-auction the plot in question was a measure intended to

maximise public benefit.

18. It was further submitted that the tender document expressly

stated that the decision of the Vice-Chairman/Authority in matters

of allotment are final and binding. Therefore, the cancellation in the

present case was not without authority and was within the scope of

the tender conditions made available to the appellant.

Points for Consideration:

a) Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ

petitions filed by the appellant herein?

b) What Order?

11

19. The undisputed facts of the case are that the GDA - respondent

No.2 had advertised the allotment of various plots through an auction

dated 25.08.2023. The appellant’s technical bid as well as the

financial bid were accepted on 14.03.2024 and on 15.03.2024,

respectively. The reserve price fixed for the subject plot measuring

3150 square metres was Rs.25,600/- per square metre and the

appellant had bid Rs.29,500/- per square metre which was the

highest bid and therefore the appellant was declared the highest

bidder. In fact, there were only two bidders in the auction including

the appellant. Since no further steps were taken by the GDA -

respondent No.2 in the matter of issuance of allotment letter to the

appellant herein, steps were taken to ascertain about the same. The

appellant became aware that the GDA - respondent No.2 had

cancelled the allotment and had notified the appellant about the

cancellation only on 22.05.2024. This was done without any prior

intimation to the appellant. The reason for cancellation according to

GDA - respondent No.2 was owing to the low bid which was made by

the appellant herein although it was higher than the reserve price.

12

The High Court has accepted the said contention of GDA - respondent

No.2 and has accordingly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the

appellant herein.

20. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar, in light

of the facts of this case and the judgments of this Court relied upon

by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

21. In K. Kumara Gupta v s. Sri Markendaya & Sri

Omkareswara Swamy Temple, (2022) 5 SCC 710 , it was observed

by this Court that unless and until it was found that there was any

material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction

and/or the auction was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not

open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of the highest bidder

on the basis of some representation made by a third party who did

not even participate even in the auction proceedings and did not

make any offer. If there is repeated interference in the auction

process, the object and purpose of holding public auction and its

sanctity would be frustrated. That unless there are allegations of

fraud, collusion, etc., the highest offer received in the public offer

13

should be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any

sanctity of any public auction.

22. In Eva Agro Feeds, it was observed that the mere expectation

of the liquidator (in the said case) which could also mean the auction

seller that, a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground

to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go in for another round of

auction. Such a course of action would not only lead to incurring of

avoidable expenses but also erode credibility of the auction process

itself. Thus, the auctioning authority must adhere to the rule of law

and an auction cannot be cancelled arbitrarily.

23. In the present case, the main contention of learned senior

counsel for the appellant was that in an arbitrary manner, GDA -

respondent No.2 cancelled the appellant’s bid on the ground that it

was lower than the rates fetched for smaller plots of different

dimensions of the same Scheme. That the technical bid of the

appellant was accepted and the price quoted by the appellant was

Rs.29,500/- per square metre which was higher than Rs.25,600/-

per square metre which was the reserve price. The appellant’s

14

financial bid was also accepted. Therefore, the decision to

subsequently cancel the financial bid of the appellant owing to “a low

rate” quoted by the appellant as compared to the “other smaller plots”

is an arbitrary and extraneous reason. That once the auction has

been held in accordance with law and there ha d been no fraud,

collusion or any other infirmity in the holding of the auction and the

earnest money has been validly deposited, there could not have been

any subsequent cancellation of the bid. In the instant case, merely

because a higher rate could have been achieved then what was

accepted and declared by the auctioning authority could not be the

reason for setting aside the auction itself. That the price quoted by

the appellant herein was 15.23% above the reserve price. Further,

without any issuance of the notice to the appellant herein, the

financial bid had been cancelled. Returning of the earnest money

deposited by the appellant herein would not legitimize an arbitrary

cancellation. Hence, it was contended that the impugned orders of

the High Court may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the

respondents herein to issue a letter of allotment of the subject plot in

the name of the appellant herein.

15

24. In order to justify the cancellation, learned counsel for GDA -

respondent No.2 contended that the bid made by the appellant was

low as compared to bids received in respect of “smaller plots” on the

very same date. Therefore, the discretion was rightly exercised by

GDA - respondent No.2 to cancel the financial bid of the appellant

and return the earnest money.

25. As already noted, Rs.25,600/- per square metre was the reserve

price fixed for the subject plot measuring 3150 square metres which

is a larger area compared to other smaller plots which also carried

the same reserve price. Ordinarily when large areas of industrial land

are auctioned, the overall price would be separately assessed as

compared to the smaller plots. This is because insofar as the

industrial plots are concerned, most of the applicants seek allotment

of smaller plots and the demand for larger plots would be scarce.

Since the GDA- respondent No.2 intended to auction an area of 3150

square metres as one plot which is a large plot, the reserve price was

also fixed at Rs.25,600/- per square metre. As noted above, that can

be compared to the reserve price fixed for the smaller plots of land

which was also Rs.25,600/-. Intentionally, an identical reserve price

16

was fixed owing to a lower demand for a larger plot. Otherwise, a

higher reserve price could have been fixed by the GDA – respondent

No.2 for the subject plot. Merely because the area of plot in the instant

case was 3150 square metres and it was a larger plot, the reserve

price could not have been higher. Therefore, the reserve price fixed

for the smaller plot as well as what has been fixed for the subject plot

was uniform i.e. Rs.25,600/- per square metre. Therefore, there has

been a uniformity in the fixing of the reserve price insofar as the

subject plot as well as the smaller plot is concerned, as is evident

from the table extracted above which are all under the very same

Madhuban Bapudham Yojna in the financial year 2023-24.

26. In the instant case, the date of auction of the subject plot was

25.08.2023 which was the very same date on which the other smaller

plots were auctioned. Merely because the selling price or the financial

bids made by the parties vis-à-vis the smaller plots were concerned

was higher per square metre cannot be a reason to also expect a very

high price or a similar price insofar as the subject plot measuring

3150 square metres is concerned. After all, from the table reproduced

above, it is evident that the smaller plots were measuring between

17

123.83 square metres to 132.20 square metres only whereas in the

instant case the subject plot is a large area of 3150 square metres.

The subject plot cannot be compared with the smaller plots auctioned

on that very day. There were only two parties who made their bids in

respect of the subject plot and the appellant herein was the highest

bidder. This fact also demonstrates that there were no bidders for the

said extent of plot as there was no demand for the same unlike a

demand for smaller plots. GDA - respondent No.2 could not have

therefore expected to receive a similar rate of bid per square metre

vis-à-vis a smaller plot insofar as the subject plot is concerned. As

already noted, the reserve price in respect of the smaller plot as well

as the subject plot was fixed at the same rate. However, as noted

above there were only two bidders who bid for the subject plot

measuring 3150 square metres. The demand for smaller plots being

more as compared to larger plots, naturally the bid amounts were

higher for smaller plots. There being lesser demand for the subject

plot being 3150 square metres, only two bidders submitted their

financial bid and the appellant was declared to be the higher bidder.

18

27. Further, the amount of Rs.29,500/- per square metre which was

bid by the appellant herein was above Rs.25,600/- per square metre

being the reserve price. Naturally, the appellant was declared to be

the highest bidder. This is in fact a crystallization of the future rights

and obligation of the parties. The appellant had a right to receive the

allotment letter and GDA - respondent No.2 had a duty to issue the

same, particularly in the absence of fraud, collusion or any other

reason which could have led to the cancellation of the auction.

Thereafter, GDA- respondent No.2 could not have compared the

selling price of the smaller plots with the financial bid made by the

appellant herein so as to cancel the auction itself. The same was

done on an irrelevant consideration. Therefore, it was arbitrary,

whimsical and irrational. Hence, the appellant was justified in

seeking the reliefs before the High Court. The High Court ought to

have considered the case of the appellant in the above perspective

and granted relief to the appellant herein by directing GDA -

respondent No.2 to pass an order of allotment to the appellant herein.

Instead, the High Court has been swayed by the argument of GDA -

respondent No.2 to the effect that the bid offered by the appellant

19

herein was on the lower side. The learned senior counsel for the

appellant contended that the adjacent plot and the plots above 2000

square metres have been allotted by the GDA - respondent No.2 at

prices only marginally above the reserve price whereas in the instant

case the appellant had bid a price which was 15.23% above the

reserve price. The High Court has also been impressed by the

argument that the appellant had no vested right as no letter of

acceptance of bid was issued to it and the earnest money of

Rs.80,64,000/- was returned to the appellant and therefore, there

was no right in the appellant to insist upon the allotment of the

subject plot. This reasoning is also incorrect and flawed. Having

regard to the facts of the present case and the discussion made above,

the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions.

28. In our view, there cannot be any imprimatur of the Court to such

arbitrary cancellation of auction by an instrumentality or agency of

the State in the absence of there being any fraud, collusion,

suppression etc. Merely because the smaller plots measuring 123 to

132 square metres were auctioned and sold at a higher price as

compared to the subject plot measuring 3150 square metres which is

20

a large sized plot, could not have been the basis for cancelling the

auction insofar as the subject plot is concerned. The demand for

smaller plots being higher was sold at a higher price per square metre

than the subject plot, where there was no demand for the subject plot

as only two bidders participated in the auction. The bid of the

appellant was above the reserve price. There was no other reason to

cancel the auction sale of the subject plot. Therefore, GDA -

respondent No.2 was under an obligation in law having accepted the

bid offered by the appellant to issue the allotment letter instead of

cancelling the auction on the basis of irrelevant considerations that

too behind the back of the appellant. Expectation of a higher bid in a

subsequent auction cannot be a reason to cancel an auction held in

accordance with law.

29. The appellant herein as also all bidders would had made all

financial arrangements before making technical and financial bids in

an auction. The technical bid of the appellant herein was accepted.

There was no reason to decline the financial bid made by the

appellant which was the highest bid. The financial bid was also over

and above the reserve price. There was no reason attributed to the

21

appellant for cancellation of the auction sale. In the circumstances,

the appellant had a legitimate expectation to receive an allotment

letter vis-à-vis the subject plot as it was the highest bidder. Instead,

without any prior notice to the appellant the auction itself was

cancelled which constrained the appellant to approach the High

Court. The High Court has lost sight of these facts of the matter and

has simply dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein

which is not correct.

30. We could consider the judgments cited at the Bar as under:

a) In Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Orchid

Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 243, the

contract contained an express clause stating that the presiding

officer had the right to reject a bid without offering any reasons.

Although twenty-seven bidders participated in the said auction

and the reserve price was Rs.106.65 crores and the highest bid

was Rs.111.75 crores for 9.527 acres of land in Gurgaon, the bid

was cancelled. However, such a clause is conspicuous by its

absence in the present case.

22

b) In Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G .S. Investments, (2007) 1

SCC 477, owing to a news item published in a newspaper that

large scale bungling had taken place in the auction due to which

the price fetched for the plots was much below the market rate,

a direction was issued by this Court to hold a fresh auction. Such

a situation did not arise in the instant case.

c) In State of Orissa vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972) 2 SCC 36,

there was a direction to hold a re-auction as the power to accept

or reject the bid was given to the highest authority in the State

and the State Government was of the opinion that the price was

inadequate. Possibly, in the facts of the said case, the said

direction was issued by this Court.

d) In Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Om Prakash

Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182, the reserve price was fixed at

Rs.1,80,200/- and the respondent therein offered Rs.1,31,500/-

which was much less than the reserve price. Hence, the bid was

rightly rejected.

23

e) In Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of

Management Studies , (2009) 6 SCC 171, the request of the

respondent therein for allotment of remaining 20,000 square

metres to them as they had acquired 37,000 square metres of

land as per the reserve price, was rejected as the price quoted

had been lower than the reserve price for the said remaining land

and rightly so.

f) In Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) vs. Shri Humud Jain

Samaj Trust, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3511, this Court

distinguished Eva Agro Feeds and found that the bid could not

be accepted as the tender committee while finalizing the bids

noticed that property tax of Rs.1.25 crore in respect of the subject

land therein was outstanding. On noticing this error, the Board

decided to cancel the bid of the respondent therein and decided

to issue a fresh notice inviting tenders.

31. The following judgments also require consideration:

a) In M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs. Sky Power

Southeast Solar India (Private) Limited, (2023) 2 SCC 703,

the bid of the respondent therein was accepted and it was

24

observed that public interest cannot always be conflated with an

evaluation of the monetary gain or loss alone.

b) In Nagar Nigam, Meerut vs. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd.,

(2006) 13 SCC 382, an advertisement inviting applications for a

fresh contract to run a slaughterhouse was sustained. In the said

judgment, it was observed that the award of government

contracts through public auction or public tender was to ensure

transparency in the public procurement, to maximise the

economy and efficiency in government procurement, to promote

healthy competition among the tenderers and to eliminate

irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the

authorities concerned. In rare and exceptional cases, for instance

during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the

Government; where the procurement is possible from a single

source only; where the supplier or contractor has exclusive rights

in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative

or substitute exists; where the auction was held on several dates

but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc.,

this normal rule may be departed from and such contracts may

25

be awarded through “private negotiations”. The Government

must then have freedom of contract. Some fair play in the joints

is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body

functioning in an administrative sphere. The plea of the

respondent therein seeking permission to modernize the

slaughterhouse and therefore, to refrain from issuing an

advertisement was negatived.

c) In Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour vs. Kolkata Metropolitan

Development Authority, (2024) 15 SCC 461 , this Court

observed that merely because the rates embodied in a contract

with the passage of time have become less appealing, the same

cannot become a determinative criterion for either terminating

the contract or for the courts to decline interference in such

contractual disputes. Public interest cannot be used as a pretext

to arbitrarily terminate contracts. Merely because the financial

terms of a contract are less favourable over a period of time does

not justify its termination. It was observed that the mere

possibility of fetching a higher license fee was no ground to cancel

the tender issued to the appellant therein.

26

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

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.

27

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.

Parties to bear their own costs

……………………………………..J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

……………………………………..J.

(R. MAHADEVAN )

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 06, 2026.