Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 282 (UTT)

Akhtar Ali v. Municipal Board

2005-07-19

B.C.KANDPAL, CYRIAC JOSEPH

body2005
JUDGMENT [Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice(Oral)] 1. The respondent Municipal Board, Rudrapur published a general notice for public auction of the right to collect parking fees in respect of Rickshaw, Rickshaw-puller, Hand-rickshaw, Bullock carts, Tonga, Buffalo cart, etc. for the year 2005-2006. The petitioner participated in the auction. According to the petitioner, he was the highest bidder having offered Rs. 1,31,500/- and his bid was accepted by the respondent. He deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the auction and a sum of Rs. 40,750/- on 06-04-2005. He also deposited the required stamp-paper for the execution of the agreement between the parties. However, no agreement was executed for quite some time and hence the petitioner submitted Annexure 4 representation dated 07-06-2005 to the respondent. Though he was not given a written reply, he was orally told that the auction had been cancelled by the Municipal Board and that the fact of cancellation had been published in 'Uttaranchal Darpan'. Alleging that the auction was cancelled by the respondent under political influence and with ulterior motives, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent to issue licence to the petitioner in pursuance of the auction held. He has also prayed for quashing the cancellation order in case the auction has been cancelled as stated in the news published in 'Uttaranchal Darpan'. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. According to the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner participated in the auction as stated in the writ petition. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the auction as it was a condition for participating in the auction. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 40,750/- being 50% of the bid amount. Such deposit of 50% of the bid amount was required under the terms and conditions of the auction. However, the respondent has categorically denied the claim of the petitioner that his bid was accepted by the respondent. It is stated that the final decision in the matter was to be taken by the Municipal Board and that the Municipal Board in its meeting held on 31-05-2005, vide Resolution No4, decided to reject the offer of the petitioner on the ground that it was less than the amount received in the previous year. It is stated that the final decision in the matter was to be taken by the Municipal Board and that the Municipal Board in its meeting held on 31-05-2005, vide Resolution No4, decided to reject the offer of the petitioner on the ground that it was less than the amount received in the previous year. The Municipal Board also decided to collect the parking fees through the employees of the respondent. It is stated that the decision to reject the offer of the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 04-06-2005 and that the said letter was sent to the petitioner through Sri Ravindra Kumar, an employee of the respondent. It is further stated that in the said letter the petitioner was also requested to take back the amount of Rs. 65,750/- deposited by him. According to the respondent, after receiving letter dated 04-06-2005 from the said Ravindra Kumar, the petitioner refused to sign the receipt. It is also stated that the cancellation of the auction was published in the newspaper 'Uttaranchal Darpan' on 31-05-2005. 3. In the light of the pleadings in the writ petition and the counter affidavit the only question to be considered is whether the petitioner has got an enforceable legal right to have his offer accepted by the respondent on the ground that he was the highest bidder. It is settled law that even the highest bidder in an auction sale has no enforceable legal right to have his offer accepted and that it is open to the party concerned either to accept the bid or to reject it for any valid reason. If .the bid is rejected for a valid reason the bidder cannot question the decision. In this case, even though the petitioner was the highest bidder, his offer was rejected by the Municipal Board on the ground that the amount offered by the petitioner is less than the amount received in the previous year. Instead of accepting the offer of the petitioner, the Municipal Board decided to collect the parking fees through the employees of the respondent. The respondent was well within its rights to take such a decision. The reason stated by the respondent for rejecting the offer of the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary or Invalid. Instead of accepting the offer of the petitioner, the Municipal Board decided to collect the parking fees through the employees of the respondent. The respondent was well within its rights to take such a decision. The reason stated by the respondent for rejecting the offer of the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary or Invalid. Hence this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision of the respondent or to direct the respondent to issue the licence to the petitioner. 4. Though the writ petition was filed on the assumption that the bid of the petitioner had been accepted by the respondent, the said assumption has been proved wrong by the averments contained in the counter affidavit. The petitioner also has not produced any material to show that his bid was accepted by the respondent. In support of his claim, the petitioner has stated three aspects: (1) he had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the auction; (2) he had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,750/- Immediately after the auction and (3) he had deposited the required stamp-paper for execution of the agreement. But the respondent has pointed out in the counter affidavit that every person who participated in the auction was bound to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as c condition for participating in the auction and hence the deposit of the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- did not mean that the petitioner's offer was accepted. 11 is also true that an amount of Rs. 40,750/- was also deposited by the petitioner as per terms and the conditions of the auction which required the highest bidder to deposit 50% of the bid amount immediately. But it also did not imply that the petitioner's bid was accepted by the respondent. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that the stamp-paper was submitted by the petitioner on his own and not as directed by the respondent. According to the respondent, the question of executing the agreement could arise only after the Municipal Board accepted the bid of the petitioner. As already stated, the Municipal Board decided to reject the bid of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for executing any agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and there was no need for submitting stamp papers. As already stated, the Municipal Board decided to reject the bid of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for executing any agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and there was no need for submitting stamp papers. In these circumstances, there is no merit In the claim of the petitioner that his bid was accepted by the respondent and that it was later cancelled by the respondent due to political Influence and with ulterior motives. It is also to be noted that there Is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the bid of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent due to political pressure or mala fides. 5. In the above circumstances, there is no merit In the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.