ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and for private respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the letter dated 15.1.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer under the orders of the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, by which the Bus stand belonging to the respondent Corporation at Kharagpur in the District of Munger has been settled with respondent No. 6 for one year. 3. The respondent Corporation had issued an advertisement in three newspapers, namely, Hindustan, Prabhat Khabar and Dainik Jagran for the settlement of Kharagpur Bus Stand as also other different Bus Stands. The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. Pursuant to the said advertisement only two persons including respondent No. 6 filed their tenders. The Tender Committee consisting of five officials unanimously decided not to open the tender and to obtain the Guidelines from the Administrator. Subsequently, on the directive of the Administrator, the tenders were opened on 10.12.2012 and respondent No. 6 being the highest tenderer the settlement was made of the Bus Stand for parking of small vehicles/Auto Rickshas/Motorcycles, etc. for a period of one year. It is the case of the petitioner that on learning about the settlement the petitioner, who is already a settlee of Zila Parishad Bus Stand in the vicinity, filed a representation dated 7.1.2013 before the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation stating that there was no proper publication of general notice as a result of which the petitioner could not participate in the auction which is also apparent from the fact that only two tenders were submitted and the petitioner made on offer that he was ready to deposit 40% more than the existing bid on which the Bus stand in question has been settled in favour of respondent No. 6. It is also the stand of the petitioner that the settlement could not have been made in favour of respondent No. 6 as he is involved in as many as nine criminal cases, including cases under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the Bus Stand of Zila Parishad which is located at a distance of about 500 sq. ft. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the Bus Stand of Zila Parishad which is located at a distance of about 500 sq. ft. on the same road has been settled with the petitioner for more than Rupees Eight Lacs for the financial year 2012-13 and thus the settlement of a Bus Stand of similar size in the vicinity for such a small amount of Rs. 74,000/- suffers from mala fide in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in Court that the petitioner is prepared to take the settlement of the Bus Stand for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and to show his bona fides he has produced a bank draft dated 15.3.2013 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the Chief Accounts Officer, B.S.R.T.C., Patna. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6, on the other hand, submits that the settlement has been made after publication in as many as three newspapers and thus it is not correct to say that the advertisement was not properly published. It is also submitted that this was the first time that the B.S.R.T.C. had issued a tender notice for settlement of Bus Stand and if the petitioner had any bona fide intention of taking the settlement, he ought to have participated in the same. It is also submitted by him that if the settlement duly made is set aside then the same would become an endless process as again someone else may come with a higher offer and there would be no end to the same. 6. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation while defending the action of the respondents in making the settlement after giving wide publicity to the same does not oppose the holding of a fresh settlement, if the same is directed by this Court. 7. Normally, in a settlement made by a tender process after due advertisement the writ Court does not interfere unless it is found necessary to do so in the public interest. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is a public undertaking of the State Government and is itself State under Article 12 of the Constitution. From the general notice, it is evident that as many as six Bus Stands in and around Munger District have been advertised but only two tenders were submitted that too with respect to Kharagpur Bus Stand only. From the general notice, it is evident that as many as six Bus Stands in and around Munger District have been advertised but only two tenders were submitted that too with respect to Kharagpur Bus Stand only. It was under those conditions that the Tender Committee itself did not find it proper to open the tender on 26.11.2011 which was the date fixed for the purpose and sought the Guidelines from the Administrator. Only upon the directives of the Administrator, the tenders were ultimately opened on 10.12.2012 and the respondent No. 6 being the higher tenderer among the two tenderers was given the settlement. It is true that the settlement itself is not prima facie illegal but the same has to be seen in the context of the fact that it was for the first time that the settlement was proposed to be made and, secondly, that in the vicinity of the Bus Stand there is another Bus Stand of the Nagar Parishad which has been settled for an amount of Rs. 8,21,500/- and the stand of the petitioner is that the said Bus Stand is adjacent and size thereof is also similar and thus it is evident that an amount of Rs. 74,000/- is a paltry amount and does not take care of the public interest in the settlement of the same. The petitioner has also come with an offer of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is more than 170 % above the amount of Rs. 74,000/- on which the Bus Stand has been settled. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the public interest, it would be appropriate that a fresh tender is made after issuing a fresh advertisement fixing the reserve price of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Earnest Money Deposit amount may remain the same as the previous time, namely, Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent No. 6 should also be permitted to participate. But so far as the petitioner is concerned, the bank draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- produced by the petitioner in Court is directed to be handed over to learned counsel for the B.S.R.T.C. and he shall not be required to deposit any further amount as E.M.D. to participate in the tender process. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The letter dated 15.1.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer is quashed and the respondents are directed to make a fresh settlement in terms of the directions given above. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The letter dated 15.1.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer is quashed and the respondents are directed to make a fresh settlement in terms of the directions given above. Let the settlement be made within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that in the intervening period, the respondent No. 6 may be allowed to continue under the settlement made with him. After the fresh settlement, in case the same is not settled in his favour, the pro rata amount from Rs. 74,000/- deposited by him shall be refunded to him by the respondent Corporation.