The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the decision by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) to cancel the bid submitted by the petitioner-firm for a plot in Sector 23, CBD Belapur. The petitioners claim their bid, which was significantly higher than the base rate, was unfairly rejected by CIDCO for arbitrary reasons. CIDCO argues the bid was rejected because it was significantly lower than bids for nearby plots. The court reviews the decision-making process to determine if CIDCO's actions were arbitrary or justified based on relevant considerations.

1. Introduction

• Proceedings Initiated: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• Respondent: City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO).
• Petitioner's Challenge: Against the decision to cancel their bid for Plot No. 8, Sector 23, CBD Belapur, and refund their Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).

2. Background Facts

• Advertisement by CIDCO: Invited applications through E-tender and E-auction for lease of plots.
• Petitioner's Bid: Submitted on 2nd November 2022 for Rs. 89,813/- per square meter.
• Auction Results: Displayed on 3rd November 2022; petitioner's bid was the highest.
• Cancellation Decision: Communicated on 25th November 2022, citing administrative reasons.

3. Petitioner's Arguments

• Arbitrariness: The decision to cancel the bid is arbitrary and lacks valid administrative reasons.
• Highest Bid: Petitioner's bid was 38.57% above the base price and the highest received.
• Transparency and Fairness: CIDCO's actions must adhere to principles of non-arbitrariness and transparency.

4. Respondent's Arguments

• Commercial Considerations: The bid was considered abysmally low compared to nearby plots.
• Discretion in Acceptance: Highest bid does not guarantee acceptance; commercial decisions allow room for discretion.

5. Discrepancies and Errors

• Affidavit Errors: Incorrect information in CIDCO's affidavit regarding the rate quoted and land use.
• Court's Directive: CIDCO ordered to produce original records to clarify discrepancies.

6. Judicial Scrutiny

• Court's Role: Examines the decision-making process to ensure it is not vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness.
• Supreme Court Precedents: Reference to cases like Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Tata Cellular on judicial scrutiny of state contracts.

7. Decision-Making Process

• Relevant Factors: Consideration of rates fetched by nearby plots in previous auctions.
• Comparison of Rates: Petitioner's bid significantly lower than rates for other plots in 2021 and 2022 auctions.

8. Conclusion

• Court's Observation: Decision to cancel the bid was based on relevant commercial considerations.
• Arbitrariness Claim: No evidence of arbitrariness in CIDCO's decision-making process.