STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. NIRANJAN SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that under an agreement he was appointed as an agent for collection of toll/taxes from vehicles plying over Matangini Setu on the Haldia River at Nargat in the district of Midnapore for one year from April 4, 1999 to April 3, 2000. The agreement between the parties provided for a clause as follows :-

(3.) The respondent requested the Executive Engineer concerned for extension of the agency for a period of another one year in terms of clause 5 of the agreement having complied with the conditions stated therein. The appellant having invited fresh bids for appointment of the agent to collect toll or taxes instead of extending the period of agency in favour of the respondent, a writ petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court seeking for quashing of the notification calling for fresh bids and to consider the representation of the respondent for extension of the period of agency. The learned Single Judge directed for consideration of the representation of the respondent. The appellants took the stand that extension of period of agency is a matter of discretion with them and not a matter of right with the respondent and rejected the representation. Thereafter, the writ petition was allowed by upholding the claim of the respondent for renewal of the agreement for another period of one year and directed the concerned authorities to grant such renewal in his favour from April 4, 2000 to April 3, 2001 subject to his compliance with the other terms and conditions and other formalities required under the law. The matter was carried in appeal to the Division Bench to contend that the discretion to grant a fresh lease in pursuance of clause 5 of the agreement, to which we have adverted to earlier, was left to the Executive Engineer concerned and there is no right available to the respondent and further it was contended that the learned Single Judge could not have granted the relief in favour of the respondent. On behalf of the respondent the contention put forth before the Court was that clause 5 of the agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent, involved an element of legitimate expectation and non-consideration of the same would amount to arbitrary exercise of the power and, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in issuing the writ. The Division Bench took the view that clause 5 of the agreement provided for extension of the period of agency not renewal, and inasmuch as the conditions imposed in respect of such extension had been fulfilled, it was not a case involving grant of a fresh agency but extension of the existing one and relied upon a decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. M/s.Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, and upheld the order made by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.