Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 929 (PAT)

Rahul Pratap Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-28

R.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to make necessary correction at page one of the counter affidavit. 2. The matter relates to settlement of Mahatma Gandhi Setu, Patna for collection of tolls for the year 2000-2001. Pursuant to the advertisement auction was held in the month of March, 2000. The highest bid was Rs. 7.20 crores which was cancelled on the ground that it is less than reserve Jama of Rs. 11 crores. Second auction was held pursuant to the advertisement in the month of May, 2000 and the highest bid was Rs. 7.51 crores but the same was cancelled on the same ground. Third time auction was held and the highest bid was Rs. 7.50 crores of the petitioner but the same was also cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued fixing 21.7.2000 for holding auction, annexure-2. In the year 1997-98 collection of toll was made through department and collection was Rs. 4,63,52,000/-. In the year 1998-99 collection through department was Rs. 4,41,93,000/-. In the year 1999-2000 settlement was made for Rs. 10 crore with one Jitendra Prasad Singh which expired on 14.5.2000. Thrice auction was held but it was cancelled. In such a situation, instead of collection through department Jitendra Prasad Singh was asked to collect tolls for one month i.e. from 15.5.2000 to 14.6.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 8.60 crores. The aforesaid Jitendra Prasad Singh wrote a letter to the respondents informing that he is not in a position to collect tolls beyond 14.6.2000 but the respondents asked him to continue for further period of one month i.e. from 15.6.2000 to 14.7.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 8 crores, an-nexure-5. Again aforesaid Jitendra Prasad Singh was allowed to collect tolls till 27.7.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 7.51 crores vide letter dated 17.7.2000. It has been alleged that action of the respondents is arbitrary and against the well settled rule of law and as such writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue of direction to the respondents to make settlement for collection of tolls in favour of the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that reserve Jama was Rs. 11 crores. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that reserve Jama was Rs. 11 crores. The respondents have got power to cancel the bid without assigning any reason. Final decision has to be taken by the government. In case of rejection of highest bid, the whole amount deposited by the highest bidder would be refunded. The government has not accepted the bid. Pursuant to the advertisement, annexure 2, bid was held on 21.7.2000 for collection of tolls and the petitioner was highest bidder of Rs. 7,63,00,102/-. The papers of auction are lying with the higher authorities for taking final decision. Allowing collection of tolls by Jitendra Prasad Singh is merely stop gap arrangement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of the respondents must be certain and predictable but in the instant case action of the respondents is arbitrary as the respondents cancelled the bid thrice without assigning any reason which indicates that the action of the respondents is not certain and not predictable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have right to cancel the auction without assigning any reason. The highest bid was less than the reserve Jama and the Government has not accepted the same. 5. On consideration this much is obvious that bid was held thrice for settlement of Mahatma Gandhi Setu and it was cancelled without assigning any reason. In the counter affidavit averment has been made that highest bid was not finalised by the Government but no order of cancellation has been annexed. It is well settled rule of law that action of the State and its authorities must be reasonable and the decision must be supported by cogent reason. Even if it is accepted that thrice the bid was cancelled or not accepted by the government but no document has been produced in support of the same. Moreover, Jitendra Prasad Singh was allowed to collect the tolls lastly at the annual average of Rs. 7.51 crores i.e. less than the reserve Jama of Rs. 11 crores for about more than two months. Therefore, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that highest bid was less than the reserve Jama of Rs. Moreover, Jitendra Prasad Singh was allowed to collect the tolls lastly at the annual average of Rs. 7.51 crores i.e. less than the reserve Jama of Rs. 11 crores for about more than two months. Therefore, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that highest bid was less than the reserve Jama of Rs. 11 crores does not appear to be correct as the respondents allowed to collect tolls at the annual average of less than the reserve Jama. Thrice bid has been cancelled which leads to uncertainty of the action of the Government/respondents. It is well settled rule of law that action of the Government and its authorities must be certain and predictable but in the instant case it appears to be arbitrary action of the Government causing harassment to petitioner and others. 6. However, in view of the averment made in the counter affidavit that 4th time bid was held and the petitioners bid was highest i.e. 7,63,00,102/- and the relevant papers are lying with the authority concerned for final decision/approval of the settlement in favour of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the authority concerned to dispose of the matter with regard to settlement within a period of two weeks from today. 7. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. K.P. Yadav, Standing Counsel No. 5, for communication and compliance of the order.