Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.B. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Zila Parishad, Katihar, learned J.C. to Government Advocate No. 4 appearing for the State and Mr. Jagannath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The petitioner has approached this court for quashing of Memo No. 834 dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure-3) as well as Memo No. 836 dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure-3/1) issued by the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Katihar, by which the earlier settlement made in favour of the petitioner for the year 2006-07 has been cancelled. 3. The short facts of the case are that the Shairat in question under S.L.B.-54 Karha Kundi as well as Chachri Pul of abovesaid Gap was settled in favour of the petitioner. With respect to the same it appears from the pleadings of the parties that a general notice under Memo No. 705 dated 9.3.2006 and 795 dated 28.4.2006 respectively was issued for the settlement of the said two shairats alongwith other Shairats on 24.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 respectively. The said notice mentioned the fact that copies of the same had been sent to the present as well as previous settlees. The petitioners case is that he, being the highest bidder, was settled with two Shairats for amounts of Rs. 3850 and 4500.00 respectively, which were deposited under receipts dated 24.3.2006 and 5.5.2006. Subsequently, it appears that one Baidya Nath Singh had complained about the settlement before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, having been made in a hush hush manner, although, he would have liked to participate in the same and was prepared to offer three times of the amount at which the settlement of Shairat, namely, Karha Kundi was made and he also deposited an amount of Rs. 13,500.00 for the same. According to the intervenor he, being an earlier settlee for the last previous years, had also filed a representation on 4.4.2006 before the District Engineer stating that no notice of the open bid had been issued to him as was the requirement under the Rules. On the basis of the aforesaid complaints, by the impugned orders contained in memo nos. 834 and 836 dated 29.5.2006, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, cancelled both the temporary settlements made in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaints, by the impugned orders contained in memo nos. 834 and 836 dated 29.5.2006, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, cancelled both the temporary settlements made in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the settlement had been made in his favour after a proper general notice being issued and the earlier settlee having been noticed about the same and he also deposited the amount for the same and was handed over possession whereupon he had invested a huge amount. It is mainly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the settlement has been cancelled without complying with the principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that no reasons have been assigned for the said cancellation. It is also submitted in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and others: A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851, that the authorities are not permitted to place before the court any additional reason apart from what is stated in the order impugned and thus, it is not open to the respondents to come forward with reasons which are not contained in the impugned orders. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the authority of the ZiIa Parishad it is not stated that any notice or show cause had been issued to the petitioner before the Settlement made in his favour had been cancelled. The only stand taken by the respondents is that it came to the knowledge of the Chief Executive Officer that a fair deal had not been maintained by the District Engineer in the bid, by which the Zila Parishad sustained a great loss in its earning and, therefore, he had decided to cancel the said settlement and issued notice to the petitioner and Sri Baidyanath Singh as well as other interested persons to participate in the said bid. 6. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances it appears that the Chief Executive Officer would have been justified in cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner in view of the complaint made by said Baidya Nath Singh as well as the representation filed by the previous settlee, i.e., the intervenor respondent; however, before doing so since a right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, the same could not be put to an end without issuing a proper show cause to the petitioner to explain as to why the settlement made in his favour should not be cancelled. 7. For the said reasons, the impugned orders dated 29.5.2006 have to be held as arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. They are accordingly, quashed. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a fresh cancellation of settlement at this belated stage when two-third settlement period has been over cannot be in the interest of either the Zila Parishad or the petitioner, who has already spent a substantial amount with respect to the settlement made in his favour, which continued to remain in his possession in view of the interim order dated 11.9.2006 passed by this court. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and and that not much period remains for the validity of the settlement, this court is not inclined to remand the matter to the authorities concerned to proceed further by issuing a show cause for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the settlement made in favour of the petitioner shall continue till the end of the settlement year 2006-07. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.