RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, admittedly, had made a bid in the auction for the year 1993-94, conducted on February 25, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum , The said bid could not be worked out for the reason that the previous contractor had approached the High Court and had the operation of the contract stayed which period expired by efflux of time. Consequently, for the years 1995-97, instead of conducting fresh auction, on an application made by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer had recommended to grant lease to the petitioner for the same amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- for two years as was done in the previous order which was accepted by the first respondent on September 2, 1995. On subsequent instructions, the first respondent had cancelled the grant of the lease of the petitioner by his proceedings dated October 28, 1995. When the petitioner had challenged the legality thereof, the High Court in W. P. No. 31606 of 1995 by order dated August 27, 1996 treating the grant of contract to the petitioner as an extension of the previous grant, held that the first respondent was devoid of power to extend the lease without obtaining prior permission of the State Government. Thus, this special leave petition.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. K. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the first respondent having granted the lease for the years 1995-97, had no power to cancel the same under Rule 7 of the U. P. Toll Tax Regulations Levy and Collection Rules, 1980 (for short, "the Rules") which gives absolute power to the Commissioner under Rule 7 thereof. Therefore, without any power to review his own order, the commissioner is devoid of power to cancel the same. We find no force in the contention.

(3.) Even assuming that the view taken by the High Court is not sound in law, since it is a fresh grant, the ultimate decision can be rested on the following circumstances. Rules 4,7,8 and 9 of the Rules reads as under: