JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2005.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
4. The petitioner had participated in a bid for auction of land held by the DDA and he has alleged that his bid was highest and he paid 25% of the bid amount. However, the bid was not confirmed by the competent authority (The Vice-chairman of DDA) who has communicated his decision to the petitioner by letter dated 25.8.1988.
5. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that no reason at all was communicated to the petitioner as to why the auction has been cancelled, and subsequent enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Ex-Municipal Councilor had written a letter to the Vice-Chairman of the DDA informing him that the plot covered by the auction was being used by Swamy Dayanand Library and the same should not have been auctioned but should have been allotted to Swami Dayanand Library. It is alleged that on this communication the Vice-Chairman, DDA cancelled the plot.
6. A counter affidavit was filed by Sh. Mahesh Chandra Sharma as well as the DDA.
7. In paragraph 3 of Mr. Sharma’s affidavit, it is stated that since 1971 the residents of Padam Nagar had been writing to the DDA to allow this plot for use of a reading room for Swami Dayanand Library. Sh. Mahesh Chandra Sharma further stated that he is not personally interested in any way in the plot and he was only interested for the benefit of the public of the locality.
8. In the counter affidavit of the DDA, it is stated that the terms of the auction amply make it clear that the bid at the auction has to be accepted by the Vice-Chairman, and unless it is accepted, the same is not valid. It is further stated that the bid of the petitioner was rejected by the Vice Chariman in the public interest since a number of representations had been received from the general public in and around Padam Nagar that the plot in question be continued to be permitted to be used by the residents of Padam Nagar for performing marriages, Mundan and other prayers and for running Swami Dayanand Library and reading room which was being run there since 1971.
9. It was denied that the petitioner’s bid was cancelled at the behest of the respondent No.2. On the rejection of the petitioner’s bid, the amount of earnest money was refunded to him but he refused to accept the same.
10. On the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
11. In clause-II (3) of the Terms and Conditions for the sale which is annexure I to the writ petition it is stated:
the highest bid shall be subject to the acceptance of the Vice-Chairman, DDA or such other officer as may be authorised by him in this behalf. The highest bid may be rejected without assigning any reason.
12. Since the bid was subject to the acceptance by the Vice-Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman did not accept the bid of the petitioner, no valid contract came into existence. Hence, no right had accrued in favor of the petitioner.
13. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable because a writ lies when there is a legal right of the petitioner which has been infringed.
14. It is well settled that even the highest bid can be rejected and no indefeasible right accrues in favor of the highest bidder until and unless his bid is accepted by the competent authority.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that the highest bid cannot be rejected arbitrarily. In this connection, we are not satisfied because cogent reasons have been given by the respondents and it is well settled that this Court cannot ordinarily sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions.
16. The prayer for interest on the earnest money refunded/refundable cannot be accepted as the earnest money was sent to the petitioner by cheque at the earliest but he refused to accept the same. Hence he is himself to blame.
17. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.