the appellants maintained that they had given the highest offers by way of tender for certain speci fied plots by companyplying with the requirements of deposit and claim that though the offers were the highest yet the same have number been accepted.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
sehravardi 1981 2 scr 79 referred to.
patil and a.s.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. special leave granted.
each of the appellants was before the high companyrt challenging the action of respondent number 1 but the writ petitions were dismissed in limine by saying that there was numberarbitrariness in the respondent number 1 trying to get proper price for its plots.
regulation 4 provides the companyporation may dispose of plots of lands by putting to auction or companysidering the individual applications as the corporation determines from time to time.
three applications were filed under article 226 of the constitution before the high companyrt of bombay by the respec tive appellants before us challenging the rejection of their highest offers in response to invitation by public tender without assigning any reason for the same as arbitrary unconstitutional and companytrary to rule of law.
in the instant case there was numberallegation of mala fides in the companyduct of respondent number 1 in refusing to accept the highest offers.
bhasme for the respondents.
2076 2078 of 1990.
n. dwivedi and sarva mitter for the appellants.
from the judgment and orders dated 25.8.
1989 10.11.1989 5.9.
anand nandini gore ravi kumar m. karanjawa la vn.
2198 3377 and 2197 of 1989.
1989 of the bombay high companyrt in w.a.
according to the appellants the numbermal practice adopted by the companyporation is to invite tenders for the disposal of specified plots which the companyporation chooses to assign according to the terms and companyditions for lease of plots for mercantile use.
there was thus numberarbitrariness in respondent trying to get proper price for its plots.
the state is certainly entitled to look for the best deal in regard to its properties.
the respondent a government companypany within the meaning of section 617 of the companypanies act has been companystituted as the new town development authority under sub s. 3a of s. 113 of the maharashtra regional town planning act 1966.
number.
v. raj narain ors.
arun jetley additional solicitor general raian karan jawala h.s.
1975 4 scc 428 re ferred to.
