Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 293 (PAT)

Md. Bashir v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-01

S.K.KATRIAR

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, and learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. As many as 12 petitioners have joined this writ petition. The petitioners were appointed as collecting agents for collecting market fee for Bakhtiyarpur Marketing Yard for the period 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2002. Sample of one such agreement is marked Annexure 8 to the petitioners supplementary affidavit, and the consequential order dt. 31.3.2001 marked Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 2. This writ petition is directed against general notice (Annexure 5), published on 3.2.2002 in the Hindustan, a Hindi daily whereby the Market Committee, Barh, has inter alia, notified Bakhtiyarpur Fal Sabzi Bazar for settlement as collecting agent(s) at the auction to be held on 21.2.2002. The same further states that in case the auction is not completed with respect to all the items mentioned therein on 21.2.2002, then auction for the remaining items shall be held on 28.2.2002 at 11 A.M. The writ petition is further directed against the general notice dt. 21.2.2002 (Annexure 11), whereby it has been notified that the auction with respect to the item(s) shall be held on 28.2.2002 at 11 AM in the Committees office at Barh. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have not been served with show cause notice before taking the impugned action. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1991(1) PLJR 379 (Vijay Kumar Singh V/s. Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board). He further submits that the petitioners are poor persons and a compassionate view may be taken by giving them a fresh term of one year. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not a case of premature termination of the agreement with the petitioners. Therefore, the reported judgment is of no avail to them. He further submits that the petitioners have no right of renewal. This issue is governed by the provisions of Rule 82(v) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1975, which procedure is being meticulously followed. 5. Having considered the submissions, it appears to me that the rights of the petitioners to act as collecting agents vide Annexure 8 read with Annexure 1 are hot being cut short. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any show-cause notice. 5. Having considered the submissions, it appears to me that the rights of the petitioners to act as collecting agents vide Annexure 8 read with Annexure 1 are hot being cut short. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any show-cause notice. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment is of no avail to him. The reported judgment related to the petitioners removal as collecting agent without giving an opportunity. Therefore, this Court had set aside the order terminating the tenure of the petitioner therein as a collecting agent which could be done after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly submitted that the Market Committee is meticulously following the procedure prescribed in Rule 82(v) of the Rules which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : ***LOCAL LANGUAGE*** According to the aforesaid provisions, the option is with the Market Committee to collect the market fee departmentally or through an outside agency. In this case, the Market Committee has decided to collect it through an outside agent and has fairly published an advertisement in a Hindi daily. The advertisement itself states that the auction for the period 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 shall be held in the Committees Barh Office on 21.2.2002. If the auction with respect to all the items is not completed on 21.2.02, then the auction for the remaining items shall be held on 28.2.2002. It appears that the auction for the item in question concerning the petitioners could not be held on 21.2.2002 and, therefore, the Committee has published the notice dated 21.2.2002 (Annexure 11) notifying that the auction shall accordingly be held on 28.2.2002 at 11 AM. I am, therefore, convinced that the prescribed procedure is being followed and the impugned action cannot be faulted. Lastly, the petitioners have no right of renewal in terms of the agreement. 6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.