Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1042 (PAT)

Balram Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-23

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. In pursuance of the order passed on the previous date, show cause petition is filed by the Dist. Magistrate, Khagaria and the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Khagaria. Though the show cause by the Executive Engineer cannot be said to be wholly satisfactory, I do not proceed any further in regard to that matter in view of the submissions of Mr. G.P.I. 2. Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. J.D. Singh, G.P.I representing the State and Mr. Hemendra Pd. Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent no. 5. 3. The dispute in this case relates to the settlement for collection of toll from vehicles crossing Pansalwa B.P. Mandal Bridge (Dumrighat) connecting Saharsa to Khagaria for the year, 2003-04. 4. It may be noted at the out-set that for the previous year (2002-03) the settlement of the bridge was made in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 42,13,166/-. During the previous year the petitioner collected tolls from the vehicles crossing the bridge @ Rs. 30/- for buses and trucks, Rs. 20/- for mini buses, Rs. 10/- for taxis, and Rs. 6/- for private vehicles. 5. The process for the settlement of the bridge for the current year started with the publication of the auction notice in the daily "Hindustan" of March 14, 2003. In the auction notice, there was no indication of the rate of tolls for different kinds of vehicles and in order to clarify the position the petitioner made an application before the concerned authorities asking for the rate at which tolls would be collected at the bridge. In response to his application, the petitioner received a letter bearing no. 223, dated 25.3.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Khagaria indicating the rate of tolls for the current year as follows : Rs. 15/ for trucks, buses and multiwheels vehicles. Rs. 10/- for light vehicles, mini buses. Rs. 5/- for car, jeep etc. 6. It is, thus, to be noticed that the rate of tolls was practically reduced to half from the previous year. 7. An auction was then held on 26.3.2003 in which the petitioner made the bid of Rs. 28,61,000/- and respondent no. 5, being the highest bidder, offered the amount of Rs. 28,65,000/-. The matter was forwarded to the Government for approval. 7. An auction was then held on 26.3.2003 in which the petitioner made the bid of Rs. 28,61,000/- and respondent no. 5, being the highest bidder, offered the amount of Rs. 28,65,000/-. The matter was forwarded to the Government for approval. But the Government refused to grant approval because the amount offered for the current year was much lower than the amount of settlement for the previous year. In the mean while it was also realised that the rate of tolls as indicated in the letter, dated 25.3.2003 was based on the guidelines fixed by the Central Government, whereas to the bridge in question the higher rates of the State Govt, were applicable at which the previous years collections were made. 8. At this stage the correct course of action would have been to scrap the auction held on 26.3.2003 and to hold a fresh auction after giving due information regarding the applicable rate of tolls to all those who had participated in the previous auction. But instead of doing that the concerned authorities proceeded to negotiate only with respondent no. 5, presumably because in the auction held on 26.3.2003 he was the highest bidder. Having come to know about the higher rate of tolls, respondent no. 5 offered an amount of Rs. 43 lacs and the settlement was made in his favour. When the petitioner came to learn about the settlement being made in favour of respondent no. 5 at higher rate of tolls, he made a representation on 5.4.2003 offering a sum of Rs. 48 lacs but at that stage it was not taken into consideration and the settlement was finally made in favour of respondent no. 5. 9. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the writ petition a the counter affidavits, I have no doubt in my mind that the concerned authorities completely mis-directed themselves and committed a material error in making settlement of the bridge in favour of respondent no. 5. In my opinion, the rate at which tolls would be collected is basic to an auction for the settlement of the bridge. If the subtratum is altered or changed, the auction held previously can not survive and fresh auction must be held on the new basis (i.e., the rate of tolls). It was, therefore, clearly an error to negotiate only with respondent no. If the subtratum is altered or changed, the auction held previously can not survive and fresh auction must be held on the new basis (i.e., the rate of tolls). It was, therefore, clearly an error to negotiate only with respondent no. 5 and to make settlement in his favour on the basis of negotiations. In the process of settlement adopted by the concerned authorities only one of the parties got a chance and the petitioner was effectively denied an opportunity to participate in the settlement process. 10. For the reasons discussed above, lam unable to uphold the settlement made in favour of respondent no. 5. The settlement made in his favour is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to immediately take steps for holding a fresh auction. The rate at which tolls would be collected must be clearly indicated to all participants in the auction and the settlement may be made for the remainder of the current financial year on a proportionate basis. 11. A fresh settlement, as directed, must be made by 31.10.2003. Till that date respondent no. 5 shall continue to collect tolls on the basis of the previous settlement, but, from November 1, 2003, the new settlee, be he respondent no. 5, or the petitioner or any other eligible person, shall collect tolls following the settlement made on the basis of fresh auction, 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.