JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has come to this Court making a prayer therein that the Gaya Municipality should be directed to execute an agreement with respect to the settlement of a sairat regarding the hoarding in the whole of the Gaya municipal area for the years 2010-13. 2. The petitioner applied for the settlement of the ghat on an advertisement issued as contained in Annexure-1 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,53,250/- as security amount and Rs. 1,83,335/- as the auction amount for the year 2010-11 as against the total bid amount of Rs. 35,50,000/-. The Gaya Municipal Corporation has not issued an agreement in favour of the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the Gaya Municipal Corporation, in its Board meetings dated 23.2.2010 and 18.3.2010 had decided that the contract should be issued in favour of M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited on a bid amount of Rs. 37,00,712/- which was 10 per cent more than the bid amount of the preceding years. In fact, the Board had decided to extend the agreement in favour of M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited. It is the stand of the Gaya Municipal Corporation that the Commissioner of the Gaya Municipal Corporation was transferred. The new Commissioner issued the advertisements without considering the decisions of the Board. Later, the Commissioner who had advertised for the settlement of the hoarding was removed/transferred as Commissioner of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. After his transfer, the Gaya Municipal Corporation has not taken final decision with respect to the fate of the petitioner. The main submission on behalf of the Board is that once the Board had taken a decision to enhance the settlement amount to Rs. 37,00,712/-, the settlement made on a lesser amount was not in accordance with law as such a settlement will cause a loss of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the Gaya Municipal Corporation. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the agreement has not been issued in his favour due to two reasons, firstly he has not deposited 2 per cent of the registration fee, which is now required to be paid for the purpose of finalizing the agreement and secondly, it is submitted that he is ready to make the payment in accordance with the amount settled by the Gaya Municipal Corporation. In fact, the Corporation ought to have negotiated with him, as he was the highest bidder. It is also submitted that M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited is a defaulter and has in the past not paid the settlement amount and in fact on two occasions, the cheques issued by M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited were dishonoured. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Gaya Municipal Corporation that the advertisement was unwarranted as it was in the teeth of the Boards decision and was causing loss to the Gaya Municipal Corporation. 6. Learned Counsel submits that the Gaya Municipal Corporation has not issued any order of cancellation of the petitioners settlement, although it has been said that the Board in its meeting dated 17.5.2010 has on the basis of the irregularities cancelled the settlement of the sairat of the petitioner and decided to invoke the decision taken by the Board in its meeting dated 23.2.2010. 7. This Court finds that the decision of the Board prima facie to extend the settlement period in favour of M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited after the period of settlement is over, was not warranted, an opportunity should be given to all persons to participate in the bid and on the basis of such participation, settlement should be made. The Board will also examine whether the allegations made against M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited are correct. In any event, it would be proper that the Gaya Municipal Corporation should issue a fresh advertisement for the purpose of settlement. The settlement should be made to the party who has fulfilled all the conditions and is not a defaulter. 8. On finalization of the bid, the petitioner would be entitled to receive back the money deposited in case the settlement is not made in his favour. 9. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.