Administrative Petition (Center) 23414-07-25 A.K. 14 Trading and Construction Ltd. v. Israel Land Authority

Judgment

Background to the Petition

1. The petition before me concerns the decision of the Tenders Committee of the Israel Land Authority dated May 11, 2025, by virtue of which a sum of NIS 400,000 was forfeited out of a bank guarantee deposited by the Petitioner to ensure the fulfillment of its bid in the framework of Tender Mr/238/2022 (hereinafter – The Tender).

The tender dealt with the purchase of lease rights in Lot 705, Block 5873, Plot 21, in the "Zipporim" neighborhood in the city of Modiin-Maccabim-Reut (hereinafter – The Pitch).  According to the Petitioner, she is the winner of the tender, and the Israel Land Authority misled her and concealed material information from her regarding the meager scope of the son's rightsYaya on the field, This led her to make a proposal that made no economic sense.  When the Petitioner learned of the facts, she withdrew her offer, but her guarantee was forfeited.

According to the Petitioner, In the circumstances in which it was misled, the Authority was obligated to return the bank guarantee in full.  Hence the petition before me, in which the petitioner sought to order the cancellation of the decision Regarding the forfeiture and in doing so, oblige the authority to return to it the full amount that was forfeited, together with linkage and interest differences.

The Petitioner's Main Arguments

2. On January 9, 2020, Respondent 1, the Israel Land Authority (hereinafter – ILA or The AuthorityPublic Tender Mr/33/2020 (hereinafter – The First Tender) to purchase lease rights in the lot. On November 4, 2020, the winners of the first tender submitted a demand to cancel their winnings and return the bank guarantee money they had deposited.  The grounds for cancellation were deliberate or negligent deception on the part of the ILA regarding the limited building rights on the lot.
3. Despite the failure of the first tender and in the midst of legal proceedings taken by the winners of the first tender against the ILA, the ILA published the tender in question on August 31, 2022.

The tender was published with respect to the same lot on which the first tender revolved.  In good faith and based on the ILA's representations, the Petitioner submitted a proposal in the sum of NIS 15 million.  On March 1, 2023, the ILA's tenders committee (hereinafter – The Tenders Committee) on the Petitioner's bid as the winner of the tender, and on March 2, 2023, the Petitioner was sent a winning notice.

4. After winning, the Petitioner began to act to complete the transaction and comply with the terms of the tender. Only at this stage did the Petitioner become aware of the claim of deception raised by the winners of the first tender against the ILA and the legal proceedings taken against it in respect of this deception.  At the center of the deception claim was an extreme and unusual planning figure, according to which the scope of the main building rights in the plot, which covers an area of about two dunams, is only about 150 square meters.  These are zero building rights that radically change the economic feasibility of the tender.
5. The publication of the tender was done while concealing this material information. This conduct of the ILA constitutes a blatant violation of the increased duty of disclosure that applies to an administrative authority, a breach of the duties of good faith and fairness, and deliberate deception or omission equivalent to misleading.
6. In view of this deception, the Petitioner sought to cancel her winning of the tender and to return to her the full bank guarantee that she had deposited. The ILA's decision-making process lasted for more than two years and included dragging its feet, ignoring the petitioner's requests, and hiding an internal decision for a year.  This delay was a deliberate attrition tactic against the Petitioner and even caused her heavy economic damage.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 19167.       At the end of the day, the tenders committee accepted the petitioner's request only partially, In this sense, the sum of NIS 400,000 was forfeited from the bank guarantee.