CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M)

Reserved on: 20.2.2025

Date of Decision: 01.4.2025

M/s Bedi Hospital ......Petitioner

Versus

Chandigarh Administration and another .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Argued by:Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate,

Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Anmol Chandan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel and

Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate

for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate

for applicants-respondents No. 3 to 6.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the

quashing of the letter dated 27.1.2023 (Annexure P-13), wherebys after

execution of the agreement to sell and the depositing of the entire sale

consideration, the respondents concerned, have allegedly unilaterally

cancelled the bid contract in respect of Nursing Home Site No. 4, Sector 33-

C, Chandigarh. Furthermore, the petitioner also seeks the quashing of the

letter dated 9.2.2023 (Annexure P-24), wherebys the agreement to sell dated

28.10.2022 has been cancelled by the respondents.

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -2-

Brief facts of the case

2. It is averred in the instant petition, that respondent No. 2

published a notice dated 31.8.2022 (Annexure P-1) for conducting an e-

auction of commercial and nursing home sites on freehold basis in

Chandigarh. The general terms and conditions (Annexure P-2) of the e-

auction were uploaded on the e-auction website. Subsequently on 4.9.2022,

respondent No. 2 issued a corrigendum wherebys, the last date for payment

of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD, and, for submission of the documents,

was extended upto 13.10.2022. As per the said corrigendum, the auction

was scheduled to be held from 18.10.2022 till 20.10.2022. It is further

averred in the instant petition, that as per e-auction notice, there were two

nursing home sites, which became offered for sale on freehold basis i.e.

Nursing Home Site Nos. 3 and 4, both located at Sector 33-C, Chandigarh,

and having same measurement i.e. 744.44 sq. yds each, besides having same

reserve price of Rs. 6,91,75,598/- each. The petitioner applied for

participating in the e-auction of both the sites (supra) and on 20.9.2022, the

petitioner deposited Rs. 27,67,024/- as advance EMD, being 2% of the

reserve price of the said sites.

3. It is further averred, that e-auction of the above sites were

started on 18.10.2022 and the same went on till 20.10.2022. The petitioner

was the highest bidder for site No. 4 with a bid of Rs. 12,58,75,598/-, which

was duly accepted by the respondent concerned, and, the acknowledgment

for Award of subject sites was issued in favour of the petitioner vide

intimation letter dated 20.10.2022 and e-mail dated 21.10.2022. On

21.10.2022, the petitioner deposited the 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.

3,05,16,488/- with respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner had already

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -3-

deposited Rs. 13,83,512/- as advance EMD, therefore, the total amount

deposited by the petitioner stood at Rs. 3,19,00,000/-. Subsequently, on

28.10.2022, in compliance of sub-clause (1) of Clause VI of the general

terms and conditions, respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sell

(Annexure P-9) with the petitioner. Though, as per Clause V of the general

terms and conditions, the remaining 75% of the bid amount was to be

deposited within a period of 90 days from the date of the auction, yet the

petitioner deposited the balance amount i.e. Rs. 9,39,75,598/- on 16.11.2022,

which was much in advance before the deadline for the deposit being made

i.e. on 15.12.2022. Therefore, 100% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.

12,58,75,598/- stood deposited by the petitioner.

4. Furthermore, it is averred in the petition that as per sub-clause

(4) of Clause VI of the general terms and conditions, sub-clause whereof

becomes extracted hereinafter, upon receipt of the full consideration amount,

an allotment letter was to be issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of the

petitioner, wherebys the petitioner was to be called upon to execute a

conveyance deed in form ‘C’.

“Upon the receipt of full consideration money, the Estate Officer

shall issue allotment letter to the intending purchaser giving the

terms and conditions of the allotment and calling upon him to

execute conveyance of deed in Form ‘C’. These documents shall be

issued/executed by the Estate Office and the purchaser, within a

period of 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The

allottee shall bear all the expenses occurring for the registration

and stamp duty etc.”

5. Vide e-mail dated 16.11.2022, the petitioner confirmed the

deposit of 100% of the sale consideration and requested the respondent

concerned, for the issuance of the allotment letter. Since therebys no

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -4-

response was received from the respondent concerned, thereupon the

petitioner moved a representation dated 12.1.2023 to respondent No. 2 with

a request to issue the allotment letter. However, instead of issuing the

allotment letter, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned letter, whereins, it

was stated that the bid contract awarded in favour of the petitioner on

20.1.2022, in respect of the nursing home site No. 4 stood cancelled, as the

bid amount did not reflect the market trend. The reason for cancelling the

bid contract was that the adjacent plot bearing nursing home site No. 3, had

fetched an amount of Rs. 18,25,75,598/-, and, since there was a gap of more

than Rs. 6 Crores between the two sites, therefore, the respondents decided

to cancel the bid contract, and, to refund the bid money deposited by the

petitioner. The respondents further decided to re-auction the nursing home

site No. 4 in order to fetch a higher amount. The respondents concerned, sent

another impugned letter dated 9.2.2023 upon the petitioner intimating it

about the cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 28.10.2022. The

relevant contents of the agreement to sell dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-9)

become ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.

“xx x x

1.That the total consideration money has been fixed at Rs.

12,58,75,598/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Fifty Eight Lakh Seventy Five

Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Eight only) in respect of the Nursing

Home Plot No. 4, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh, measuring 744.44 sq.

yards (out of which a sum of Rs. 3,19,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore

Nineteen Lakh only) being 25% amount of the total consideration

money has been paid by the purchasers/bidders. The seller hereby

acknowledge the receipts of the same.

2.That the balance amount of 75% of the consideration money

shall be paid by the purchasers/bidders in 90 days in terms of the

provisions of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007.

3.That the failure on the part of the purchasers/bidders to

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -5-

deposit 75% of the consideration money within the prescribed

period of 90 days shall result in cancellation of the allotment of

site/building, as the case may be and the amount deposited by

him/her/them shall be forfeited to the seller which in no case shall

exceed 10% of the total consideration money, interest and other

dues payable in respect of the site of building or both and the

intending purchaser/bidder shall have no claim to any damages.

4.That similarly on the failure on the part of the seller to fulfill

its obligation to transfer the property for any reasons other than the

reasons connected with public order, security of State or change in

public policy, the seller shall return the amount of 25% so paid by

the purchasers/bidders and the intending purchasers/bidders shall

have no claim to any damages.

5.That the purchasers/bidders shall abide by the provisions of

the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and

the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, as amended from time to time.

6.That this agreement to sell has been prepared in duplicate

and each party has kept a copy of the same.”

Submissions on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits-

(i)That after confirmation of sale, and execution of the

agreement to sell, besides upon receipt of the entire sale consideration, the

respondent concerned, has no power/authority to review or cancel the bid

contract, as the agreement to sell denotes, that after its execution and after

the entire sale consideration being paid, the respondent concerned, shall

issue the allotment letter.

(ii)That as per the provisions referred in the impugned letter,

the power and authority to review the auction, though vests with the

respondent concerned, but the said empowerment is to be exercised before

the acceptance of the bid, and, not subsequent to the execution of the

agreement to sell. However, it is submitted that since prior to the

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -6-

confirmation of the bid, the respondent concerned did not recall the bid, but

rather the respondent concerned, thus post the execution of the agreement to

sell, rather proceeded to make the impugned annexures, therebys the

drawing of the impugned annexures is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes

of law.

(iii)That the respondents concerned, while cancelling the

auction have relied upon clause 4 of the agreement to sell, which opens with

‘on failure on the part of the seller to fulfill its obligations’. However, the

agreement to sell dated 28.10.2022 has been cancelled only for the reason

that the respondents concerned, might fetch a better price for the site in

question, which does not amount to failure on the part of the seller to fulfill

its obligations. Therefore, the said clause cannot be invoked by the

respondents.

(iv) That the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by

clause (vi) of Rule 5 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, Rule whereof, become

extracted hereinafter, which casts a duty upon the Estate Officer to issue

allotment letter to the intending purchaser. Since the petitioner has paid the

full consideration amount within time, therefore, it was mandatory for the

Estate Officer to issue allotment letter in favour of the petitioner.

5. Sale/Lease by Auction

(i)In case of sale/lease by auction, the interested bidders will

have to deposit an earnest money of Rupees two lakhs, in cash or by

means of demand draft drawn on any Scheduled Bank situated at

Chandigarh in favour of Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh with the

Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in order to become eligible for

participating in the auction.

(ii)On the acceptance of the highest bid, twenty five per cent of

the bid accepted by the auctioning officer shall be paid at the fall of

the hammer by the highest auction purchaser by means of demand

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -7-

draft drawn in favour of Estate Officer UT Chandigarh.

(iii)If the auction purchaser fails to pay the amount of 25% of the

auction price at the fall of hammer, the earnest money deposited

under sub-rule (i) above shall be forfeited.

(iv)Thereafter, an Agreement to Sell shall be executed between

the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and the auction purchaser in

the prescribed form as at Form-B or Form B-I, as the case may be,

with a stipulation that in case of default in making timely payment of

the remaining balance of 75% within the stipulated time period, the

amount of 25% paid by the auction purchaser shall be forfeited.

Similarly in case the Chandigarh 4 Administration fails to fulfill its

obligation to transfer/lease out the property for any reason other

than the reasons connected with public order, security of State or

change in public policy, the Administration shall return the amount

of 25% paid by the auction purchaser alongwith the equivalent

amount deposited by him/her as damages for non-performance.

(v)The remaining 75% of the consideration money shall be

deposited by the intending purchaser in lump sum within 90 days of

the date of the auction by way of the prescribed mode of payment

failing which the offer of allotment shall be deemed to have been

cancelled and the payment made under sub-rule (ii) shall be

forfeited and the intending purchaser shall have no claim to any

damages. Provided that if the last day happens to be a public

holiday, the next working day shall be deemed to be the last day for

such payment. Provided further that in case of allotments to

Government(s) or semi Government or autonomous bodies/

organizations, the period for the above said payment may be

extended by the Chief Administrator on a written request by the

organization/Department justifying the delay to the satisfaction of

the Chief Administrator, subject to payment of interest @ 12% per

annum for the period of delayed payment, provided that such delay

shall in no case exceed one year or 12 months in the whole.

(vi)Upon the receipt of full consideration money, the Estate

Officer shall issue allotment letter to the intending purchaser giving

the terms and conditions of the allotment and calling upon him to

execute a Conveyance deed / Lease deed in Form ‘C’ or Form ‘D’

as the case may be. These documents shall be issued/executed by the

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -8-

Estate Office and the purchaser, as the case may be, within a period

of 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter.”

(v)That once the auction was confirmed, and when through

the drawing of an agreement to sell, a concluded contract came into

existence. Moreover, when all the contractual obligations cast upon the

present petitioner, imperatively the one related to the entire sale

consideration being liquidated to the respondent concerned, also became

fully discharged. As such, it is argued, that the respondent concerned, was

under a contractual obligation to execute a deed of conveyance, than to

through the impugned letter (Annexure P-13), contents whereof become

extracted hereinafter, rather intimating the petitioner, that the said contract

between the parties is yet required to be annulled on the premise, that the

contractual sale consideration is not a correct reflection of the market trend.

“It is intimated that the bid contract awarded in your favour on

20.10.2022 in respect of Nursing Home Site No. 4, Sector 33-C,

Chandigarh is hereby cancelled with immediate effect due to the

reason that the site adjacent to Nursing Home Site No. 4 having

same area, has fetched the highest bid of Rs. 18,25,75,598/-. Such

huge difference i.e. Rs. 6 crores between the adjacent sites having

same area does not reflect the market trend. Therefore, it has been

decided by the Administration to cancel the current bid for Nursing

Home Site No. 4 and re-auction it with reserve price as the highest

bid for Nursing Home Site No. 3, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh. The

refund of the amount deposited by you has been processed and will

be credited in your account by 31.1.2023.

It is pertinent to mention here that as per sub clause (i) under

clause I of the general terms and conditions for sale of Nursing

Home Sites by E-auction on Free hold basis at Chandigarh,

whereby “The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh has absolute right

to accept or reject any or all the offer(s) or adjourn/postpone/cancel

the e-auction without assigning any reason thereof.

Further as per Clause No. 4 of Agreement to Sale executed on

28.10.2022- “That similarly on the failure of the Seller to fulfill its

obligation to transfer the property for any reason other than the

reasons connected with public order, security of State or change in

public policy, the seller shall return the amount of 25% so paid by

the purchasers/bidders and the intending purchasers/bidders shall

have no claim to any damages.”

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -9-

You may participate in the bid, whenever the site is re-

auctioned by the department.

This issues with the approval of Hon’ble Administrator, U.T.,

Chandigarh.”

Submissions on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the respondents-

U.T., Chandigarh

7. The learned senior counsel for the respondents-U.T. submits-

(i)That both the nursing home sites No. 3 and 4 are adjacent sites having

same area. The highest bid received for site No. 3 was Rs. 18,25,75,598/-,

whereas the highest bid received for site No. 4 was Rs. 12,58,75,598/-, and,

the bid contract was awarded on 20.10.2022, thus to both the highest bidders

respectively to one Satinder Pal Singh and to M/s Bedi Hospital.

Subsequently, the proceedings of the e-auction were forwarded to the

Secretary, Estate, thus apprising him vis-a-vis the difference in the highest

bid of both the adjacent sites, whereupon on 11.1.2023, a decision was taken

to re-auction/re-bid the Nursing Home Site No. 4, with the reserve price

similar to the highest bid price fetched qua Nursing Home Site No. 3, as

both the sites are contiguous, and, such a huge difference in the highest bid,

will cause huge financial loss to the Administration.

(ii)That the petitioner himself has participated in the e-

auction of site No. 3 and stood as H3 in the said e-auction. The petitioner’s

last bid for the adjacent site No. 3 was for Rs. 17,76,75,598/-. Therefore, the

true value of site No. 4 is much more than the bid made by the petitioner

i.e. Rs. 12,58,75,598/-.

(iii)That the petitioner under the garb of the present petition,

has been seeking the relief of specific performance, and, that the present

petition has been filed by the petitioner to wriggle out of the mandate of

Section 69 of the Partnership Act, rather requiring the making of compulsory

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -10-

registration upon the joinings’ of persons, thus in a mercantile activity,

thereupon, with the present petitioner being an unregistered firm, whereupon

it could not initiate the instant litigation, as it did not have the locus standi to

do so.

(iv)That the present petition is not maintainable as disputed

question of facts are involved in the instant case, and the remedy available to

the petitioner is to file a civil suit.

(v)That a perusal of the terms and conditions of the

e-auction and agreement discloses that no legal or contractual obligations for

allotment has accrued in favour of the petitioner, and, that till the time the

allotment letter is issued, thereupto the respondents became empowered to

cancel the e-auction process at any stage.

(vi)That it was clearly mentioned in the terms and conditinos

of the e-auction, that the Estate Officer may withdraw any site that may have

been put up for auction and he may accept or reject the highest bid amount

without assigning any reason and the decision of the Estate Officer in this

regard shall be final.

(vi)That the acceptance of highest bid is always subject to

conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is

always liable to become examined in the context of the peculiar conditions

in which the auction has been held.

Inferences of this Court

8. The embodiment of sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of the General

Terms and Conditions (Annexure P-2) sub-clause whereof become extracted

hereinafter, in the impugned letter(s), whereupon the respondents concerned,

proceeded to annul the confirmed auction bid, to the considered mind of this

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -11-

Court, is an empowerment which was to be exercised prior to the

confirmation of the bid, and, not subsequent to the confirmation of the

auction bid.

“(i)The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh has absolute right to

accept or reject any or all the offer (s) or adjourn/postpone/cancel

the e-auction without assigning any reason thereof. The e-bidders

are advised to go through the detailed terms and conditions of e-

auction on the web portal eauction.gov.in before submitting their

registration fee, bid amount and taking part in e-auction. The

intending e-bidder should register their name(s) at eauction.gov.in.

E-auction without digital signatures will not be accepted by the e-

auction portal. ”

9. Moreover, the said power was not to be exercised post the

settlement of a contract amongst the concerned through theirs entering into

an undisputed agreement to sell. Since the petitioner fully discharged the

apposite contractual obligation cast upon it, whereas, the respondent(s)

concerned, failed to discharge the contractual obligations cast upon it/them,

inasmuch as, its/theirs failing to yet execute a registered deed of conveyance

in respect of the subject site vis-a-vis the present petitioner. Consequently,

the failure on the part of the respondent concerned, to discharge its/their

contractual obligation, thus favourably attracts vis-a-vis the present

petitioner, thus the principles of legitimate expectation, and, of promissory

estoppel. The said principles are expounded in the relevant paragraphs of a

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Vice Chairman and

Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Cooperation

Maharashtra and another versus Shishir Reality Private Ltd. and others,

reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141. The relevant paragraphs of the said

judgment become extracted hereinafter.

“58.When a contract is being evaluated, the mere possibility of

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -12-

more money in the public coffers, does not in itself serve public

interest. A blanket claim by the State claiming loss of public money

cannot be used to forgo contractual obligations, especially when it

is not based on any evidence or examination. The larger public

interest of upholding contracts and the fairness of public authorities

is also in play. Courts need to have a broader understanding of

public interest, while reviewing such contracts.

x x x x

64. Before we delve into the aforesaid arguments, it is imperative

for us to go to have a look at certain decisions of this Court. This

Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State

of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 409 laid down the necessity of the

government being bound by the principles of promissory estoppel in

the following words:

“24. … The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as

a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a

promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the

promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it,

alters his position, the Government would be held bound by

the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the

Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding

that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise

is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by

Article 299 of the Constitution. … It is indeed difficult to see

on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of

law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory

estoppel… It was laid down by this Court that the Government

cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule

of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on

the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive

action. If the Government does not want its freedom of

executive action to be hampered or restricted, the Government

need not make a promise knowing or intending that it would

be acted on by the promisee and the promisee would alter his

position relying upon it. But if the Government makes such a

promise and the promisee acts in reliance upon it and alters

his position, there is no reason why the Government should

not be compelled to make good such promise like any other

private individual. The law cannot acquire legitimacy and

gain social acceptance unless it accords with the moral values

of the society and the constant endeavour of the Courts and

the legislature, must, therefore, be to close the gap between

law and morality and bring about as near an approximation

between the two as possible. The doctrine of promissory

estoppel is a significant judicial contribution in that direction.

But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of

promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -13-

when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the

Government that having regard to the facts as they have

transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to

the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in

favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the

Government. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be

displaced in such a case because, on the facts, equity would

not require that the Government should be held bound by the

promise made by it. When the Government is able to show

that in view of the facts as have transpired since the making of

the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the

Government were required to carry out the promise, the Court

would have to balance the public interest in the Government

carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced

the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public

interest likely to suffer if the promise were required to be

carried out by the Government and determine which way the

equity lies. ….The burden would be upon the Government to

show that the public interest in the Government acting

otherwise than in accordance with the promise is so

overwhelming that it would be inequitable to hold the

Government bound by the promise and the Court would insist

on a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this

burden.”

65.In the aforesaid case, this Court held that it would not be

enough for the Government to merely state that public interest

requires that the Government should not be compelled to carry out

the promise. It is imperative that the Government when seeking

exoneration from liability of enforcing contract, must satisfy the

Court as to how public interest overrides the necessity of enforcing

the contract.”

10. The principles which can be culled out from the said judgment,

are that (i) the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate

expectancy, are grooved in equity, and, do not predominate either public

interest or public policy. (ii) Contrarily, both public interest and public

policy eclipse the efficacy of supra equitable doctrines. The constitutional

Courts are required to be thus balancing the endowment of the doctrine of

promissory estoppel to the petitioner vis-a-vis the predominant theretos, thus

public interests and public policies.

11. Though, the exception to the said principles is grooved in the

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -14-

factum, that unless the promise concerned, direly affects or jeopardizes the

public policy, thereupon the apposite endowments of the equitable principles

of promissory estoppel and consequent thereto principle(s) of legitimate

expectation(s), thus cannot become endowed to the promisee.

12. Be that as it may, much beyond what has been expostulated in

the judgment (supra), expostulations whereof become premised on equity,

rather with the presently executed effective and undisputed agreement to sell

especially when thereunders cast contractual obligation vis-a-vis the present

petitioner becomes fully discharged by the latter, but yet the respondent

concerned, failing to discharge the contractual obligation enjoined

thereunder vis-a-vis it/them, through its/theirs omitting to execute the

registered deed of conveyance, but thus more firmly favourably begets

attraction vis-a-vis the present petitioner. The said inference becomes

spurred, in the context of the presently settled inviolable contract, thus

coming into existence inter se the present petitioner and the respondent

concerned. Resultantly therebys since the supra equitable principles but

necessitated theirs becoming effectively applied vis-a-vis the respondent

welfare state, which otherwise stands on a footing different than a private

individual, whereupons the respondent becomes overloaded with the

necessity of discharging the constitutional requirement of ensuring that the

promises made by it, to the promisee rather remain unreneged. However, the

said constitutional assurance becomes attempted to become reneged, that too

merely on the pretext, that in case any breach becomes made by the

government or its agencies vis-a-vis the apposite contractual obligation cast

upon it, therebys the promisee being led to file a suit for specific

performance, whereupon the solemnity of the mandate encapsulated in

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -15-

Article 299 of the Constitution of India, rather would suffer immense

erosion.

13. Therefore, in the face of an evident breach being made to an

inviolable contract executed by the State or its agencies, thus with private

individuals, especially when the promisee rather has evidently fully

discharged the apposite contractual obligation made upon it, whereas, the

respondent concerned, omitting to discharge the contractual obligation cast

upon it, that too for no well made reasons quartered within the statutory

rules. Resultantly therebys, this Court becomes empowered to make a

mandamus upon the respondent concerned, to execute the registered deed of

conveyance. Therefore, in the said context, this Court does not become

coaxed to direct the petitioner to file a suit for specific performance, as

therebys, the apposite failure on the part of the respondent to discharge its

inviolable contractual obligations, rather would cause breach becoming

made to the supra constitutional duties encumbered upon the respondent-

State, whereas, thereunders a constitutional assurance becomes meted to the

promisee concerned, that the contract entered inter se him/her, hence with

the State or its agencies, thus shall become rigorously abided by.

14. In other words, if there is yet an endowment of permissibility to

State or its agencies to renege from the apposite contractual promises, or if

the State agencies are not estopped from the mandate of the supra

constitutional provisions, from thus making breaches vis-a-vis their

contractual obligations cast upon them, therebys the basis of a welfare state,

besides the basis of the rule of law, which is the pillar of the Constitution,

but would become ineffective.

15. Moreover, the said inference is also lent strength through the

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -16-

provisions, which occur in Article 299 of the Constitution of India, provision

whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

“299. Contracts. -- (1) All contracts made in the exercise of the

executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be

made by the President, or by the Governor of the State, as the case

may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made

in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the

President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as

he may direct or authorise.

(2) Neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally

liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for

the purposes of this Constitution, or for the purposes of any

enactment relating to the Government of India heretofore in force,

nor shall any person making or executing any such contract or

assurance on behalf of any of them to personally liable in respect

thereof.”

16. Since the said provision becomes embodied in the Constitution

of India, which but is the prime enforceable document, therebys when

contracts entered into by the Union of India in the name of the President of

India, or by any of the federal units concerned, in the name of the Governors

of such federal units, thus theretos constitutional sanctity becomes assigned.

Moreover, when therebys all the assurances made thereunders to the vendees

or the promisees, are also constitutionally assured to become meted the

utmost deference. In sequel, therebys, any contract entered into by the State

of Haryana, State of Punjab and or by their respectively created

instrumentalities or agency(ies) and or by the corporate entities established

under the State legislations concerned, thus become covered within the

ambit of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the

thereunders made assurances to the promisees concerned, are required to

become meted the declared constitutional sanctity, besides unless strong

compelling reasons comeforth qua the said promises meted to the promisees

concerned, by all supra, being not enforceable, thereupon the apposite

constitutional provisions require utmost deference becoming meted thereto.

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -17-

Predominantly, the vitals of the foremost regulatory document i.e. the

Constitution of India, is to remain throughout in operation, rather than the

said constitutional provisions becoming violated, and that too intentionally

and willfully by all supra.

17. Since in the present scenario, the agreement to sell has been

rescinded through Annexure P-24, that too without prima facie any apposite

annulling jurisdiction becoming vested in the author of Annexure P-24,

especially when the jurisdiction to annul the agreement to sell becomes

solitarily vested in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Resultantly,

when there is complete lack of empowerment in the author of Annexure P-

24 to annul the validly executed agreement to sell, therebys the cancellation

or annulment of the agreement to sell also requires being quashed and set

aside.

18. Furthermore, to the considered mind of this Court, in case there

was any rigging of the e-auction bid, therebys the said fact was to be borne

in mind but prior to the confirmation of the e-auction bid, rather than post

the conclusion of the e-auction bid. Imperatively, since the cancellation of

the e-auction bid, is ordained by the supra extracted rules, to be done prior to

the confirmation of the e-auction bid, and, not subsequently thereto, as has

been untenably done in the instant case.

19. Furthermore, if both the auctioned sites are undisputendly

adjacent to each other, and, with the highest bidder vis-a-vis the site adjacent

to the present subject site, also participating in the present subject bid, and,

yet his failing to give an offer equivalent to the one, as he offered vis-a-vis

the site adjacent to the subject bid. In sequel, since the respondent

CWP No. 2811 of 2023 (O&M) -18-

concerned, also genuinely conceived that the auction bid as became offered

vis-a-vis the site adjacent to the present subject site, thus was not required to

be offered vis-a-vis present subject site. Resultantly therebys too, there was

no rigging of the present subject bid. On the other hand, in the face of the

above, the respondent concerned, also did acquiesce that the price offered by

the present petitioner rather was the only realistic price of the present subject

bid, whereupons he becomes estopped to challenge the finalized bid, as

became offered by the present petitioner, and, which resulted in a binding

and concluded inviolable contract becoming drawn between the present

petitioner and the respondent concerned. Resultantly theretos, constitutional

sanctity is to become endowed, besides theretos the principles of promissory

estoppel and of legitimate expectation do firmly accrue vis-a-vis the present

petitioner.

Final order

20. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and,

is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The

impugned annexures are quashed, and, set aside.

21. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)

JUDGE

(VIKAS SURI)

JUDGE

April 1

st

, 2025

Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No