Synopsis

The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in an e‑auction for an industrial plot and received a letter of intent (loi). after depositing 25% of the premium, the respondent discovered a “technical glitch”: the petitioner’s bid was below the threshold value computed under the dda e‑auction circular. the loi was withdrawn and the amount refunded with interest. the petitioner argued that a concluded contract had come into existence. the delhi high court dismissed the writ petition, holding that (i) the auction terms expressly reserved the respondent’s right to reject any bid before final allotment; (ii) no demand‑cum‑allotment letter was ever issued; (iii) the threshold methodology was uniformly applied to seven similarly situated plots; and (iv) the court does not sit in appeal over technical/commercial decisions in auctions.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 3189/2026 (2026:DHC:4360-DB)

Core Law: Constitutional Law – Article 226 (judicial review in public auctions); Contract law – Letter of Intent, concluded contract, vested rights; Tender/e‑auction law – threshold technique, rejection of bids.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

W.p.(c) 3189/2026, cm appl. 15311/2026 & cm appl. 15312/2026

M/s three hands infrastructure (india) pvt. ltd. (petitioner) vs. Delhi state industrial and infrastructure development corporation ltd. (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice anil kshetarpal and hon’ble mr. justice amit mahajan

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ j

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.