Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2097 (PAT)

Babloo Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2010-09-09

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Both the writ applications raise common issues and have accordingly been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. On 26.4.2010 a settlement notice was issued by the Zila Parishad, Patna with respect to Daniawan Bus Stand and proposed Bus-Taxi Stand in Fatuha Inspection Bhawan Premises for the period from 1.6.2010 to 31.3.2011 which was to be settled by public auction on 3.5.2010 at 11 A.M. in Patna Zila Parishad Bhawan. The petitioners in the two writ petitions applied respectively for settlement of Daniawan Bus Stand and Bus-Taxi Stand of Fatuha and they claimed to be the successful bidders. The petitioner Babloo Kumar having bid successfully for the Fatuha Bus-Taxi Stand at Rs.1,07,100/- and the petitioner Kiran Shankar being the highest bidder at Rs.55,000/- for the Daniawan Bus Stand, by separate orders dated 20.5.2010 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patna the same were respectively settled with them. The settlement of the Bus Stand/ Bus-Taxi Stand was made in favour of the two petitioners from 1.6.2010 to 31.3.2011. The petitioners had in the meantime deposited the entire bid amount within the permissible time. Subsequently by the impugned orders both dated 25.6.2010 the settlements in favour of the petitioners were cancelled referring to the direction of the Chairman of the Zila Parishad. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the settlements made in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice and without providing them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which has not been done in the present matter. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned for the cancellation of the settlements in the impugned orders dated 25.6.2010 and on the said count also the two orders ought to be struck down as arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable. 4. It is also urged by learned counsels that the reasons assigned in the counter affidavits filed by the Zila Parishad cancelling the settlements are non-est and the facts stated therein for the cancellation were in existence even prior to the issuance of the settlement notice and subsequent settlement made in favour of the petitioners. Apart from the same it is urged that it is not open to the respondent authorities to add to the reasons given in the order by the respective counter affidavits that have been filed. 5. Apart from the same it is urged that it is not open to the respondent authorities to add to the reasons given in the order by the respective counter affidavits that have been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad, on the other hand, refers to what is stated in the counter affidavit in support of the cancellation of the settlement. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the Chairperson of the Zila Parishad found that the required facilities at the Bus Stands was not up to the mark as given in the guidelines of Road Transport Act and, as such, the passengers would be put to great hardship if the inbuilt Bus Stands were permitted to operate. The second reason assigned is that when the Bus Stands were settled in favour of the different settlees for the last financial year they did not comply with the terms of the agreement under which they had to develop the Bus Stands at their own cost on the guidelines of the Zila Parishad and, as such, the passengers suffered a lot. The third reason assigned is that the settlement amount was also low in comparison to the previous years settlement amount. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners. The settlements having been made in favour of the petitioners they, had a right to continue in terms of the settlement until 31.3.2011. The said valuable rights of the petitioners could not have been extinguished without issuing show cause notice to them and giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them. Moreover, the order cancelling the settlement does not give any ground for the same and in view of the fact that valuable rights of the petitioners were involved the cancellation order has been passed in a most arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner. 7. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners that it is not open to the Zila Parishad to add to the reasons, if any, as may have been given in the order of cancellation, in the counter affidavit filed by them. The impugned orders must stand or fall on their own. 7. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners that it is not open to the Zila Parishad to add to the reasons, if any, as may have been given in the order of cancellation, in the counter affidavit filed by them. The impugned orders must stand or fall on their own. Even on examination of the said reasons this Court finds that the same are not reasons which had come into existence after the settlement had been made but were fully within or ought to have been within the knowledge of the authorities of the Zila Parishad even before the settlement notice had been issued. It is too late to say after one month of the settlement, that the facilities of the said Bus Stands are not up to the mark. Moreover, it is preposterous to rely upon the non-compliance of the terms of the agreement by the settlees of the previous year for cancelling the settlement in favour of the petitioners in the succeeding year. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 25.6.2010 cannot stand and they are, accordingly, quashed. The respondents are restrained from preventing the petitioners to collect the toll tax/parking fees in terms of the order of settlement. The petitioners are also entitled to remission of the settlement amount for the period they had been prevented from exercising their rights in terms of the settlement. Such amount shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ applications are, accordingly, allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions and observations.