Supreme Court of India
Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 February, 2026
2026 INSC 168
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) NOS.21419-21420 of 2023)
SUSHIL KAMALNAYAN BHARUKA
& OTHERS … Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& OTHERS … Respondents
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein were the writ petitioners in W.P.
No.3872/2022 filed before Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, assailing the cancellation of the auction of
Plot No.P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 square meters situated at
Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad which auction was
Signature Not Verified
conducted by the respondent – Maharashtra Industrial
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.19
10:15:02 IST
Reason:
1
Development Corporation Limited (“MIDC”, for the sake of
convenience). The said writ petition was heard along with W.P.
No.1324/2023 filed by the respondent-Pratik Group. By the
impugned order dated 09.08.2023, the Aurangabad Bench of the
Bombay High Court observed as under:
“14. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that
Writ Petition No.3872 of 2022 lacks merit and is liable to
be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. We further
direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to start fresh bidding
process in relation to the property being plot No.P-4/2
admeasuring 4800 square meters situated in
Chikhalthana Industrial Area at Aurangabad.
15. As far as Writ Petition No.1324 of 2023 is
concerned, we are of the view that in view of
dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, present
Writ Petition can be disposed of in terms of prayer
clause (A) (ii) which reads as under:-
“(A)(ii) Issue fresh tender process in
respect of the writ plot i.e. No.P-4/2,
admeasuring 4800 sq. mtrs situated in
Chikhalthana Industrial Area,
Aurangabad by giving time bound
scheduled.”
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P.
No.3872/2022 are before this Court.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for
2
respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the contesting respondents at
length. We have also perused the material on record.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-MIDC
by way of e-bidding notice dated 20.01.2022, initiated a tender
process for the allocation of industrial, commercial and residential
plots across various industrial areas in Maharashtra, including
Plot No. P-4/2 admeasuring 4800 sq. mtrs. situated in Chikalthana
Industrial Area, Aurangabad (‘subject plot’) through a centralised
e-bidding system. As per the said tender notice, the bid submission
window remained open from 21.01.2022 at 11:00 a.m. until
04.02.2022 up to 5:00 p.m. It also stipulated a two-way bid system,
including submission of a technical bid in Envelope A and a
commercial bid in Envelope B.
6. The appellants herein, by way of an application for the
allocation of the subject plot, proposed a bid amount of
Rs.16,299/- per square meter and deposited earnest money of
Rs.12,55,120/- along with their application. Subsequently, by way
of an intimation email dated 11.02.2022, the appellants herein
were declared as the highest bidders. In the absence of any
3
intimation regarding the deposit of the balance amount, the
appellants sent an email to the respondent-MIDC, requesting the
issuance of a Letter of Allotment in favour of the appellants with
respect to the subject plot.
7. However, respondent-MIDC by way of office note bearing No.
MIDC/IFMS/HQ/IT/IT CELL/2022 dated 02.03.2022, cancelled
the aforesaid e-bidding process and invited a fresh tender for six
plots, including the subject plot herein, on account of having
received multiple complaints concerning the e-bidding process in
respect of the said plots.
8. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred W.P. No.
3872/2022 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench
at Aurangabad, seeking certain reliefs.
9. Meanwhile, respondent No.4-Pratik Group also filed Writ
Petition No.1324/2023 before the High Court seeking directions to
be issued to the respondent-MIDC to open and consider the rate
quotation of the said firm in respect of the subject plot and in the
alternative, sought a fresh tender process to be issued in respect
of the said plot. In the said writ petition, the appellants herein
4
preferred an intervention application bearing Civil Application
No.2067/2023, contending that the act of the respondent No.4 in
submitting multiple bids at the belated stage was deliberate and as
such, there was no technical glitch in the e-bidding process
inasmuch as respondent No.4 was able to successfully submit bids
for other plots from the same I.P. address on the same date.
10. By way of the common impugned order dated 09.08.2023, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants
herein and allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No.4-
Pratik Group. Consequently, a direction was issued to respondent-
MIDC to issue a fresh tender process in respect of the subject plot
by giving a time-bound schedule.
11. During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for
the appellants drew our attention to an order of the Principal Bench
of the Bombay High Court in W.P. Nos.3993/2022, 5368/2022 and
3841/2022 by which the said Writ Petitions were disposed of on
18.11.2022. The relevant portions of the order read as under:
“5. Mr. Sakhardande, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners invited our attention to the email annexed at
page 126 of the Writ Petition No.3993/2022 and submitted
that the petitioners were informed that the bids of the5
petitioners were highest in respect of three plots. He
submitted that the excuse now given by the respondents
that there was technical glitch and as a result thereof, the
bids of 6 bidders could not be received by the MIDC is a
false excuse. The respondents could not point out any
such technical glitch alleged to have been occurred as a
result of which some of the other bidders were unable to
submit their bids and participate in the tender process.
6. In view of this statement made by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, we enquired with the learned
counsel for MIDC whether any of those six bidders who,
according to MIDC could not submit their technical bid,
had challenged the action on the part of the MICD with a
prayer to cancel the tender process and to accept their bids
or to allow them to participate in the tender process,
learned counsel for the respondents on instructions fairly
stated that no proceedings were filed by any of the bidders,
who according to MIDC were unable to submit their bids
due to technical glitch. The respondents could not point
out any correspondence or objection from any of those six
bidders alleging the technical glitch as a result they could
not submit their bid and could not participate in the tender
process.
7. We are informed that except those six bidders, who
had applied in the tender process, the other bidders have
withdrawn their bids and have accepted refund of their
earnest money deposits.
8. Since the other bidders have withdrawn their bids
and already accepted the refund of the earnest money
deposits, the petitioners are the only bidders, who had
challenged the action on the part of the respondents in
cancelling the tender, we quash and set aside the
impugned decision of the respondents in cancelling the
tender and restore the tender on file insofar as the
petitioners are concerned.
6
9. The respondents are directed to consider those bids
in accordance with the tender conditions and to pass
appropriate order within two weeks from today.
10. The above writ petitions are allowed in aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as
to costs.”
12. It was submitted that when the Principal Bench of the
Bombay High Court at Bombay had passed the aforesaid order
dated 18.11.2022, the same ought to have been considered and
followed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court since the
issues raised in both the writ petitions were identical inasmuch as
the question essentially was, whether, the cancellation of the
auction process itself was erroneous. The principal Bench had held
that the cancellation of the auction process was erroneous and
therefore insofar as the writ petitioners who had approached the
Principal Bench, relief was granted to them by setting aside the
cancellation of the auction in question.
13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners also
drew our attention to paragraph 7 of the affidavit of the
respondent-MIDC before the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court
which reads as under:
7
“The answering respondent submits that the petitioner has
submitted its bid for the plot of land Plot No.P-4/2
admeasuring 4800 sq. mtrs. situated at Chikalthana
Industrial Area. The upset price of the plot as declared was
Rs.5,210/- The last date of submission of tender was 4th
February 2022 and the bids were opened on 10th February
2022. As the petitioner had completed all the technical
requirements with respect to the E-bid tender notice hence
the automatic system generated mail dated 11th February
was addressed to the petitioner stating that the petitioner
is qualified for the commercial bid. It is further submitted
that for the Writ plot in all 7 bids were received. After
scrutinizing all the bids, the petitioner was again through
a system generated mail informed that its bid stood as the
Highest in respect of the plot and hence declared as the
highest bidder and the same was communicated to the
petitioner.”
14. However, insofar as the appellants/writ petitioners who
approached the Aurangabad Bench a similar relief was not granted
to them. It was submitted that although the respondent-Pratik
Group had also assailed the auction process and both the writ
petitions filed by the appellants and respondent-Pratik Group were
heard together, when once the Principal Bench had set aside the
cancellation of the auction process that order ought to have been
followed by the Aurangabad Bench. Instead, the Aurangabad
Bench set aside the entire auction process and this, consequently,
has resulted in contradictory orders by two different benches of the
Bombay High Court. He therefore submitted that having regard to
8
the fact that the connected SLP Diary No.45650/2024 having beendismissed by this Court on the ground of delay and having regard
to the fact that there cannot be contradictory orders by the very
same High Court in respect of the very same issue raised by
different parties before different Benches, the impugned order
passed by the Aurangabad Bench may be set aside and the relief(s)
similar to what has been granted by the Principal Bench may be
granted to the appellants herein.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Pratik Group
and learned counsel for the respondent-MIDC pressed into service
the fact that the respondent-Pratik Group had in fact challenged
the very auction process in view of there being technical glitches
and lack of opportunity to the said entity to make a bid. On the
other hand, the writ petitioners before the Principal Bench are the
persons who have participated in the auction process and it is only
at their instance that the Principal Bench had granted relief by
setting aside the cancellation of the auction process. Therefore, the
said order could not have been applied to the case of the
respondent- Pratik Group inasmuch as the very auction process
9
was assailed by the said entity before the High Court. It wastherefore submitted that irrespective of the order passed by the
Principal Bench, this Court may dismiss the appeal filed by the
appellants herein and sustain the impugned order.
16. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in
light of the two contradictory judgments passed by the two Benches
of the Bombay High Court.
17. We have also taken into account the fact that the Special
Leave Petition which was filed by the respondent-Pratik Group
which also assailed the very same impugned order has been
dismissed by us on the ground of delay. The contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent-Pratik Group was that the mere
cancellation of the auction process was not a sufficient relief at all.
In fact, the respondent-Pratik Group was the highest bidder and
therefore the MIDC ought to have allotted the subject plot and
executed the sale deed in favour of the Pratik Group.
18. In reply to such a submission, learned senior counsel for the
appellants drew our attention to the communication which is at
Annexures P-8 to the effect that the appellants herein had been
10
intimated that they had successfully qualified the technical bid and
they were the highest bidders and therefore their offers had been
accepted.
19. In light of this fact it was submitted that a speculative writ
petition filed by the respondent-Pratik Group could not have been
the reason for denying relief to the appellants herein. For this
reason alone, it was submitted that the impugned order may be set
aside and the relief consistent with the Principal Bench may be
granted to the appellants herein.
20. We find considerable force in the submissions made by
learned senior counsel for the appellants inasmuch as there cannot
be any litigation with regard to a bid having been declared as the
highest bid.
21. In K. Kumara Gupta vs. Sri Markendaya & Sri
Omkareswara Swamy Temple, (2022) 5 SCC 710, it was
observed by this Court that unless and until it was found that there
was any material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public
auction and/or the auction was vitiated by any fraud or collusion,
it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of the highest
11
bidder on the basis of some representation made by a third party
who did not even participate even in the auction proceedings and
did not make any offer. If there is repeated interference in the
auction process, the object and purpose of holding public auction
and its sanctity would be frustrated. That unless there are
allegations of fraud, collusion, etc., the highest offer received in the
public offer should be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there
shall not be any sanctity of any public auction.
22. The question, as to, whether, the cancellation of the e-auction
process was justified or not has also already been adjudicated upon
by the Principal Bench of the Bombay High Court and it has set
aside the cancellation of the auction. The said order has attained
finality inasmuch as respondent-MIDC has not assailed the same
and has accepted the same. In the circumstances, we do not think
that there can be two contradictory orders of different benches of
the High Court on the very same issue.
23. Hence, in the interest of judicial consistency and on the
merits of the case as well, we find that the relief that was granted
to the writ petitioners who filed the writ petitions before the
12
Principal Bench of Bombay High Court ought to be also granted to
the appellants herein.
24. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The MIDC is
directed to process the allotment to be made to the appellants
herein and execute the sale-deed to the appellants subject to the
balance payments to be made.
25. The said exercise to make balance payments to respondent
MIDC shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the
date this order is made available.
26. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and these
appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 03, 2026
13
