Coordinate Benches Of High Court Cannot Take Contradictory Views On Same Issue: Supreme Court Restores MIDC Plot Allotment to Highest Bidder
Repeated interference with concluded auction processes would erode the sanctity of public auctions
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) and restored the allotment of an industrial plot to the highest bidder, holding that two coordinate benches of the same High Court cannot take contradictory views on the very same issue.
The Bench highlighting the judicial consistency and the sanctity of public auctions, directed the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) to process the allotment and execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants, subject to payment of the balance amount within four weeks.
While placing reliance on Kumara Gupta vs. Sri Markendaya & Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, (2022) 5 SCC 710, the Court observed that once a bidder has been declared the highest and there are no allegations of fraud, collusion or material irregularity, the auction cannot be unsettled merely on the basis of a speculative challenge by a third party. It further reiterated that repeated interference with concluded auction processes would erode the sanctity of public auctions and defeat their very purpose.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “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”.
Senior Advocate C.U. Singh appeared for the appellants and Advocate Sangeeta Nenwani appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, the dispute was an outcome of an e-auction conducted by MIDC in January 2022 for allocation of plots at the Chikhalthana Industrial Area in Aurangabad. The appellants had participated in the bidding process, deposited earnest money, cleared the technical stage and were informed through a system-generated communication that they were the highest bidders. However, before issuance of the Letter of Allotment, MIDC cancelled the entire e-bidding process citing complaints and alleged technical glitches affecting certain bidders.
While the appellants challenged the cancellation before the Aurangabad Bench, the Principal Bench of the Bombay High Court, in separate petitions arising out of the same auction process, had earlier quashed the cancellation and restored the tender in favour of successful bidders. Despite this, the Aurangabad Bench dismissed the appellants’ writ petition and directed a fresh tender process, resulting in two conflicting decisions from coordinate benches of the same High Court.
Therefore, holding that the appellants were entitled to relief consistent with that granted by the Principal Bench, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed MIDC to proceed with the allotment in their favour.
Cause Title: Sushil Kamalnayan Bharuka & Ors. v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 168]
Appearances:
Appellants: Devdatt Palodkar, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR, Anoop Raj, Chirag Zanwar, C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Sandesh Deshpande, Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, AOR, Advocates.
Respondents: Anand Dilip Landge, AOR, Sangeeta Nenwani, Revati Pravin Kharde, Shreenivas Patil, Rahul Prakash Pathak, Devdatt Palodkar, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR, Anoop Raj, Chirag Zanwar, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Aagam Kaur, Kartikey, Gayatri Agarwal, Shubhangi Agarwal, Utkarsh Kumar, Advocates.