Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 400 (ALL)

BAIJ NATH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-02-01

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Mr. G.S. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner BaijNath, Mr. Ashok Singh for respondents No. 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None was present for the respondent No. 3. 2. In the instant writ petition, legality of the public auction held for allotment of ponds No. 3335 and 5932, respectively, in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5, situating in village Dubari, Pargana Nathoopur, Tahsil Madhuban, district Mau has been challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the previous allottee of both the ponds and had a right for renewal of the allotment as well as for taking part as a bidder in the fresh auction but the respondents No. 2 and 3 held the public auction without making publication of the advertisement of the proposed auction in two daily newspapers. Due to non-compliance of the rules in making wide publication of the advertisement, the eligible persons including the petitioner could not take part in the public auction held under the supervision of the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 31943 of 2002, am Bharosey Lal v. State of U.P. and submitted that the auction was against the verdict of the aforesaid Division Bench. 3. In the aforementioned case, the Division Bench has observed as follows : “We, therefore, again reiterate that a fishery lease can only be granted after public auction or public tender after publication in well known newspapers having wide circulation. Any lease granted or any renewal of lease without such public auction or public tender and without advertisement in well-known newspapers will be wholly illegal.” 4. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 conceded that no advertisement was published in any news paper as required by the Division Bench. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted that only a news item was published in a daily newspaper giving information that on every Friday ponds will be auctioned at Tahsil Headquarters. 5. In my opinion the news item being relied on by the respondents No. 4 and 5, cannot be treated as publication of the advertisement in the news paper. 5. In my opinion the news item being relied on by the respondents No. 4 and 5, cannot be treated as publication of the advertisement in the news paper. The news item is very vague and had not specified the details of the ponds, which were to be auctioned and the time and place of the auction as well as the terms and conditions to be observed by the bidders. The auction cannot be held to be valid on the basis of the news item only, specially when there was no due publication of the notice/advertisement of the proposed auction in daily news papers as observed by the Division Bench in the aforementioned case. 6. No public auction can be held to be valid if it is done in a secret manner and without giving notice of the auction alongwith terms and conditions of the auction to general public. It is also well recognized that the notice of public auction must be published in news papers having wide circulation so that willing persons may come forward and participate in the public auction as bidders. If such publication is not done, the public auction cannot be held to be valid. The object behind giving notice to general public for public auction by publication in news papers is to get maximum price, premium or return of the subject matter sought to be auctioned and also to provide opportunity to general public to participate as bidders in the public auction. In the instant case, no public notice for holding the auction had been published in any newspaper nor general public were provided any opportunity to participate in the auction as bidders. Therefore, the impugned auction cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4.5.2006 (Annexure No. 3 and 5 to the writ petition) including the entire auction proceedings are quashed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to hold a fresh auction in accordance with the law expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. ————