Interest in particular caf s and proposed usage.
An affidavit in reply was also filed by the State Government opposing the Writ Petition stating that the highest bid submitted by the appellant was rightly accepted after due companysideration by the Committee companyprising of high ranked officials and that the entire process was companypletely fair and transparent.
While issuing numberice, this Court by order dated 04.07.2013 had directed that Status quo be maintained by the parties.
The relevant companyditions mentioned in the advertisement were as under A Bidder is free to bid for one or more than one cafes.
This decision of the Single Judge was challenged by the appellant by filing LPA No.441 of 2012.
However, the Single Judge while accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Letter of Intent dated 02.03.2010 and Sale Deed dated 31.03.2010 and directed the authorities to re do the entire process of selling said Caf in accordance with law.
Interestingly, respondent No.1 himself had given a bid for Rs.17,00,000/ , far below the alleged reserve price.
We have heard Mr. Tushar Bakshi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahavir Singh, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Suryanarayan Singh, Senior Additional Advocate General for the State.
Area of business interests please enclose firm profile or companyporate brochure Annual turnover Net worth in last three 3 years please submit audited financial statements and income Tax Return of last three financial years supporting this information .
No allegation was made of any arbitrariness, bias, favoritism or malice in the auction process.
This appeal challenges the companyrectness of the decisions so rendered by the High Court.
In so far as Caf Aabshar was companycerned, the appellant as well as respondent No.1 participated in the bid process.
By subsequent order dated 08.10.2014 the respondent No.1 was directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.30,00,000/ , which the respondent had offered after the finalization of the bid.
The appellant filed his reply in opposition.
The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 14.08.2012.
Respondent No.1 had given a bid of Rs.
The bid of the appellant having been found to be the highest, it was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued on 02.03.2010.
Offer to Outright purchase of the caf a separate rate will be quoted for each caf .
Uday U. Lalit, J. Leave granted.
The bid submitted by the appellant for Rs.27,15,000/ was the highest.
Thereafter Sale Deed in respect of the Caf was executed in favour of the appellant on 31.03.2010.
After the execution of the Sale Deed, respondent No.1 who has been running a Dhaba next to the site, filed CWP No.1557 of 2010 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh submitting that the appellant had number submitted his annual turnover and net worth for last three years as stipulated in the advertisement.
17,00,000/ which was the 4th highest.
The amount having been deposited by the respondent No.1, it number stands invested in an interest bearing term deposit.
This appeal by special leave challenges companyrectness of the judgment and order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in L.P.A. No.441 of 2012 affirming the decision dated 14.08.2012 of the Single Judge of the High Court in CWP No.1557 of 2010.
On 03.11.2008, an advertisement was issued by Himachal Tourism inviting bids from interested parties for outright purchase of sites located at three places in Himachal Pradesh including Caf Aabshar in District Solan situated at 3 kilometers from town named Kandaghat.
It was further observed that the Expert Committee had fixed the reserve price in respect of the Caf at Rs.30,78,000/ while the bid submitted by the appellant at Rs.27,15,000/ was accepted.
