Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1272 (ALL)

Gangaram v. State of U. P.

2020-11-02

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for the Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.. 2. In all these writ petitions challenge is to orders dated 30.12.2019 passed by respondent No. 3, the Sub-. Divisional Officer, Naugarh, District Siddharth Nagar. 3. It appears that these petitions pertain to ponds of the Gaon Sabha, which were put to an auction. The case of the petitioners is that their bid was the highest. They deposited the amount of the bid. Subsequently, on account of enmity, Ex-Pradhan filed certain applications on the basis whereof, the impugned order has been passed. 4. It is sought to be argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that since petitioners were allotted all the respective ponds in question, the order dated 30.12.2019 cancelling the auction proceedings and calling for a fresh auction could not have been passed without hearing them. 5. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, who appears for the complainant at whose instance the order dated 30.12.2019 has been passed has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that no lease was ever granted and that the auction proceedings have been cancelled because other prospective auction bidders had not been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the auction proceedings. The impugned order therefore, call for no interference. 6. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, who appears for the Goan Sabha 'and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents have also supported the impugned order. 7. Auction of a fisheries lease over a pond belonging to the Gaon Sabha is held by means of a public auction to be held after wide circulation and advertisement in the area where the ponds are situated. The highest bidder in the auction proceedings is required to deposit 1/4 of his bid amount immediately on the close of the bidding. The remaining bid amount is required to be deposited within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, once the' entire deposit has been made, the auction is confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in favour of the highest bidder. Upon confrontation of the auction, a lease deed is executed in favour of the successful bidder. 8. In the case at hand, only a receipt for a sum deposited immediately on the close of the auction proceedings had been brought oh record. 9. Upon confrontation of the auction, a lease deed is executed in favour of the successful bidder. 8. In the case at hand, only a receipt for a sum deposited immediately on the close of the auction proceedings had been brought oh record. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce any receipt regarding the balance 3/4 of the bid nor any order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugarh approving the bids, nor any lease deed that may have been executed in favour of the respective petitioners. 10. On a pointed query as to the existence of an order of approval, which is necessarily required to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugarh, the only contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that since by the impugned order, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled, it necessarily implies that the petitioners bid was accepted and approved and a lease was granted in their favour. 11. This Court is unable to accept the submission made by Counsel for the petitioner. Once, the bid is accepted, a specific and categorical order in this regard is required to be passed by the Sub,-Divisional Officer and in its absence; this Court has no option to presume that no such order was actually passed. In any case, the petitioner has not been able to produce any such order. In the absence of the same, there is no lease in favour of the petitioner and therefore, even if it has been observed in the impugned order that the petitioners lease stands cancelled, the same is a totally redundant observation. 12. The impugned order has cancelled the auction proceedings that were held, primarily on the ground that it was so held without adequate opportunity to various villagers and prospective bidders to participate in the auction. 13. Since, it is well settled law that such a public auction is to be held only after wide publication and after affording prospective bidder an opportunity to participate in the auction proceedings so as to maximize the return to the Goan Sabha, by such auction, the impugned orders in these petitions do not call for any interference. 14. In any case, no right of the petitioners stands infringed as the petitioners have not been able to establish that they had in fact been awarded any lease. 15. 14. In any case, no right of the petitioners stands infringed as the petitioners have not been able to establish that they had in fact been awarded any lease. 15. Under the circumstances and for the reasons given above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the writ petitions, which are accordingly, dismissed. 16. It is, however observed that as and when, fresh auction proceedings are held, it shall be open for the petitioner to participate in the same, in case, they so desire and are otherwise, eligible for the same. 17. After the above order had been dictated, Counsel for the petitioners states that they shall seeded the ponds that may be permitted to remove the fish. 18. This prayer is entirely misconceived and cannot be granted. Till such time, an order accepting the petitioners bid was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and a valid lease document was executed, the petitioners had no right to seed the pond and in case, he has done so it was illegal and at their own risk and peril. For this reason, the prayer made by Counsel for the petitioners is entirely misconceived. It is hereby, rejected.