Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 911 (PAT)

Lallan Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-07-03

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. By filing these two writ petitions the two petitioners have challenged the instruction of the Commissioner, Munger Division bearing Letter No. 675 dated 30.3.2012, Annexure-9, 11 in the two writ petitions, whereunder Commissioner directed the Chief Executive Officer of Lakhisarai Nagar Parishad to settle Laloo Bus Stand, Lakhisarai for the year 2012-2013 in favour of the successful bidder of the bid held for the settlement of the said bus stand on 12.3.2012 i.e. Respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner in the two writ petitions that Commissioner considering the administrative interest issued the impugned directions ignoring the decision of the Executive Officer to hold fresh bid after revising Reserved Jama Amount in the light of the instructions of the Government contained in Circular Letter No. 2526 dated 12.09.1978, as would appear from Letter No. 377 dated 17.3.2012, Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 6967 of 2012 addressed to the petitioner of the said case and Letter No. 429 dated 28.3.2012, Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C.No. 7160 of 2012 addressed to the highest bidder of the bid held on 12.3.2012, Respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that appreciating public interest the authorities of the Lakhisarai Municipality themselves decided to annul the bid held on 12.3.2012 so as to enable them to revise Reserved Jama Amount in the light of the Government instruction dated 12.09.1978 and issued aforesaid instructions dated 17.3.2012, 28.3.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid two instructions dated 17.3.2012, 28.3.2012 for revising the Reserve Jama of the Laloo Bus Stand were issued in public interest taking into account the instructions of the Government for fixing the Reserve Jama of the Bus Stand, the Commissioner, Munger Division should have appreciated the purpose for holding the re-bid for settlement of the Bus Stand and ought not to have interfered in the matter for administrative reasons. It is submitted that for administrative reasons public interest involved in revision of the Reserve Jama can never be sacrificed. 5. It is submitted that for administrative reasons public interest involved in revision of the Reserve Jama can never be sacrificed. 5. Counsel for the State G.P.-14, Private Respondent No. 4 Sri Dinu Kumar have opposed the aforesaid submission by submitting that Collector of the District, Commissioner of the Division are strangers in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, whereunder settlement of the bus stand has been made, as such, Collector, Lakhisarai ought not to have issued Letter No. 336 dated 17.3.2012 on the basis of which Letter No. 377 dated 17.3.2012 was issued by the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality directing Lallan Ram petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6967 of 2012 to deposit 50% of the revised bid amount of Rs. 13,25,000/- within one week so as to enable the Municipality to hold re-bid for the settlement of Laloo Bus Stand. 6. Learned counsel for the Private Respondent further submitted that in Sairat Settlement matters writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable on the ground of violation of circular of the State Government dated 12.09.1978 and this Court should refrain from entertaining this writ petition. In this connection learned counsel for the private respondent also relied on the judgment in the case of Chetlal Sao and another Vs. The State of Biha and others, reported in 1986 PLJR 149 (Full Bench) paragraph 6,7, 8, which has already been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case reported in the same volume of the PLJR at page 17 of Supreme Court Section. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that one of the two writ petitioners, namely, Raj Kumar Gupta of C.W.J.C. No. 7160 of 2012 having participated in the bid held on 12.3.2012, as would appear from the bid-sheet, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by Private Respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 7160 of 2012 and having failed to match the amount offered by Private Respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to assail the settlement of the Bus Stand made in favour of Respondent No. 4 as in the light of the bid held on 12.3.2012 not only agreement, Annexure-E has been signed by and between the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality and Private Respondent No. 4 on 30.3.2012, Annexure-E but also Parwana bearing Letter No. 447 dated 30.3.2012, Annexure-F has also been issued in favour of Private Respondent No. 4. 8. Counsel for Private Respondent No. 4 further submitted that petitioner Lallan Ram though deposited 50% of the revised bid amount of Rs. 13,25,000/- in compliance of the instructions of the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai dated 17.3.2012, Annexure-3 but withdrew the said amount cannot be allowed to prosecute the present writ petition as the order for revision of the Reserve Jama Amount and holding of the re-bid was at his instance. In this connection it is also submitted that Lallan Ram has not approached this Court with clean hands as he did not disclose in the writ petition which was filed on 06.04.2012 that he withdrew the amount deposited in compliance of letter dated 17.3.2012 on 31.3.2012 itself. It is further pointed out that in the light of the agreement and the Parwana, Annexure-E, F Private Respondent No. 4 is already collecting the toll from the bus stand and the present arrangement should be allowed to continue for the remainder of the financial year i.e. up to 31.3.2013. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions aforesaid, I am of the view that from the contents of letter dated 17.3.2012, Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 6967 of 2012 it is evident that the attention of the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality towards the circular of the Government bearing Letter No. 2526 dated 12.9.1978 was invited by the Collector, Lakhisarai under letter dated 17.3.2012, may be on the application of Lallan Ram but the decision to revise the Reserve Jama amount of Laloo Bus Stand was taken by the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality with direction to Lallan Ram under letter dated 17.3.2012 to deposit half of the revised Reserve Jama amount within one week of receipt of letter dated 17.3.2012. The decision to revise the Reserve Jama amount has been taken in the light of the relevant Government circular which was only brought to the notice of the Executive Officer by the Collector at the instance of Lallan Ram but thereafter the decision to revise the Reserve Jama amount and to hold fresh bid was that of the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality and not of Collector, Lakhisarai. The decision to revise the Reserve Jama amount fixed for Laloo Bus Stand as also to hold fresh bid was taken by the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality which was challenged by Respondent No. 4 before Commissioner, Munger Division who for administrative reasons directed under impugned letter dated 30.3.2012, Annexure-9, 11 in the two writ petitions to settle Laloo Bus Stand with the highest bidder of the bid held on 12.3.2012 i.e. prior to revision of the Reserve Jama amount under letter dated 17.3.2012. The Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality having taken decision dated 17.3.2012 to revise the Reserve Jama amount in the light of the circular letter dated 12.9.1978, however, executed agreement dated 30.3.2012 by and between himself and the Private Respondent No. 4 as also issued Parwana dated 30.3.2012 in compliance of the instructions dated 30.3.2012 of Commissioner, Munger Division which has been impugned in the two writ petitions. The subject matter of challenge in the two writ petitions being the order dated 30.3.2012, Annexure-9, 11 passed by the Commissioner, Munger Division setting aside the direction of the Executive Officer to hold fresh bid the two writ petitions are maintainable and the judgment in the case of Chetlal Sao (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case in hand. 10. Administrative reason which is the basis of the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner cannot override public, financial interest of the Municipality considering which the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality decided under letter dated 17.3.2012 to revise the Reserve Jama amount for Laloo Bus Stand and further decided under letter dated 28.3.2012 to hold fresh bid for settlement of the Laloo Bus Stand, which decision, in my opinion, the Commissioner ought not to have interfered with in consideration of administrative reasons as the decision to revise the Reserve Jama Amount dated 17.3.2012 was taken by Executive Officer in public interest in the light of circular of the Government dated 12.9.1978 which could not be acted upon when the earlier bid was held on 12.3.2012. To redeem the financial interest of the Municipality in the light of the revised Reserve Jama fixed for Laloo Bus Stand decision was taken on 28.03.2012 to hold the bid afresh as in the light of the earlier bid dated 12.3.2012 neither agreement was executed by and between Executive Officer of Municipality and Respondent No. 4 nor Parwana was issued until then. 11. 11. The order passed by the Commissioner ignores the decision taken in public interest to revise the Reserve Jama Amount as also to realize the same by holding fresh bid, I have no option but to set aside the order dated 30.3.2012, Annexure-9, 11 passed by the Commissioner, Munger Division. Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that this order shall come into effect if the petitioners (Lallan Ram and Raj kumar Gupta) deposit Rs. 26,00,000/- each by 10.07.2012, whereafter they along with others including Private Respondent No. 4 shall have the opportunity to participate in the fresh bid which must be held within two weeks from the date of deposit or within such time which is provided for in the Statute. 12. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.