Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 79 (PAT)

Sri Prakash Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-15

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner by way of present writ application is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.4.2007 by virtue of which the earlier settlement of a bus stand made for the year 2007-08 in favour of the petitioner by Zila Parishad, Saran at Chapra has been cancelled. Thereafter a fresh advertisement has also been issued in this regard where the private respondent turned out to be successful bidder. 3. The contention of the petitioner fs that in terms of an advertisement issued by the D.D.C.-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Saran settlement of Sarha Dhala Bus Stand for the year 2007-08 was ordered by open bid. Petitroner alongwith the private respondent no. 6, namely, Brij Kishore Singh participated in the said auction. Petitioner turned out to be the successful bidder and a Parwana was also issued in his favour. After the private respondent lost out in the bid, he made a complaint to the Divisional Commissioner alleging that the proper procedure had not been followed in the auction. Two grounds had been stated therein for challenge to the settlement one is that the D.D.C. who was the competent person did not supervise the auction and the second that even though private respondent was the highest bidder but he was shooed away from the campus. It seems due to the intervention of the Commissioner as well as a communication from the Regional Transport Authority the earlier settlement made in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled. Petitioner has brought to my notice a report which was sought by the Commissioner in the matter which is annexed as Annexure-8. The D.D.C. had categorically reported on the two points which were raised in the complaint petition of the private respondent. A reading of the report would show that no legal infirmity was committed while the auction was made or held with regard to the settlement of the bus stand in question This Court is of the opinion that the objections which were raised and based on which the Divisional Commissioner responded does not seem to be a justified reason for interference in matters of such contract. 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 has been filed. The private respondent has also appeared in the matter. 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 has been filed. The private respondent has also appeared in the matter. The private respondent has tried to justify the subsequent settlement and has submitted in support of the decision which had been taken by the respondent authorities in resettling the said bus stand in his favour. 5. There are two primary contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioner one that the principles of natural justice has not been followed because the action taken against the interest of the petitioner has been taken without any issuance of show cause or notice to him and it has been taken at the instance of an interested party to the matter. His second submission is that the Commissioner had no occasion to interfere with the matter because he does not have the requisite powers in this regard. He bases this submission on a recent decision reported in the case of Mandar Madhusudan Bahudhandhi Swablambi Sahkari Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar, 2007 2 PLJR 27 . After going through the judgment this Court is of the considered opinion that the law laid down in the above case does apply in case of the present petitioner as well and to that extent the petitioners claim as well as the relief prayed for in the present writ application is justified. 6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has one submission to make. He brings to my notice an earlier order dated 24.7.2007 which was passed. By virtue of the Court order, the Zila Parishad, Saran was directed to collect the toll of the Sarha Dhala Bus Stand during the pendency of the writ application and the respondent no. 6 was barred from making any collection in this regard. He submits that since the settlement was for the financial year 2007-08 which is going to come to an end on 31st March, 2008. The major portion of the settlement year has gone past and it will not be in his economic interest now to start making collections at such belated stage. In that view of the matter, he would like that the Zila Parishad should refund the money which has been deposited by him as successful bid amount amounting to Rs. The major portion of the settlement year has gone past and it will not be in his economic interest now to start making collections at such belated stage. In that view of the matter, he would like that the Zila Parishad should refund the money which has been deposited by him as successful bid amount amounting to Rs. 20,01,600/- with the option to participate in the next settlement for the next financial year if he chooses to do so. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping the fact in mind that an arbitrary action taken by the respondents has frustrated the contract in question as major period of the financial year has gone by in litigation and petitioner has not been able to make any collection pursuant to the said bid, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner to refund his money is not misplaced. As per Courts order the Zila Parishad continued to collect the toll of the bus stand in question and should do so till 31st March, 2008 only or till the settlement of the bus stand in question for the coming financial year. 8. This writ application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be refunded his money as deposited by him indicated above within a period of six weeks from the date of communication/ production of a copy of this order. 9. It will be open to respondent no. 6 to also approach the Zila Parishad, Saran for refund of his amount, if so advised. 10. This writ application is disposed of with above direction.