PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 316/2012 – Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Dhan Raj by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied to OP/petitioner for allotment of Kiosk in auction on the basis of advertisement published in paper. Complainant offered Rs.76,151/- against reserved price of Rs.44,500/-. Complainant paid Rs.60,000/- as 10% on 27.3.2012 and Rs.54,000/- as 5% on 28.3.2012. Complainant’s bid was highest and was forwarded to office of OP No. 2 & 3 for approval, but bid was rejected. Rejection of offer amounts to unfair trade practice. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that for the same kiosk offer bid was received for Rs.99,002 on 9.11.2011 and complainant’s offer bid was much less; hence, rejected and ordered for re-auction within its rights and denied any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to accept complainant’s offer bid along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was within its rights to reject offer bid as it was for much lesser amount than previous offer bid; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 4. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission dismissed appeal on the ground that offer bid made by complainant was much higher than the reserved price. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because offer bid is more than reserved price, complainant does not get any right to get bid accepted. Advertisement published in paper clearly reveals that petitioner reserved right to reject or accept any bid without assigning any reason. As per written statement, previous bid for same kiosk was Rs.90,052/- whereas, complainant’s bid was only for Rs.76,151/- and in such circumstances, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in rejecting bid because this right had already been reserved by the petitioner in the bid advertisement. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any terms and conditions or judgment in support of his contention that petitioner was bound to accept bid offer merely on the basis of bid being highest. No concluded contract came into force between the parties and complainant’s offer was only an offer and petitioner had every right to accept or reject the bid and I do not find any deficiency in rejecting bid as it was for lesser amount than the previous bid offer amount. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside. 5. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the State Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur in Appeal No. 316/2012 – Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Dhan Raj and order dated 5.11.2012 passed by District Forum in Case No. 439/2012 Dhan Raj Vs. Dy. Commissioner (Housing), Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. |
