AKHTAR ALL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent Municipal Board, Rudrapur published a general notice for public auction of the right to collect parking fees in respect of Rickshaw, Rickshaw -puller, Hand -rickshaw, Bullock carts, Tonga, Buffalo cart, etc. for the year 2005 -2006. The Petitioner participated in the auction. According to the Petitioner, he was the highest bidder having offered Rs. 1,31,500/ - and his bid was accepted by the Respondent. He deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - before the auction and a sum of Rs. 40,750/ - on 06 -04 -2005. He also deposited the required stamp -paper for the execution of the agreement between the parties. However, no agreement was executed for quite some time and hence the Petitioner submitted Annexure 4 representation dated 07 -06 -2005 to the Respondent. Though he was not given a written reply, he was orally told that the auction had been cancelled by the Municipal Board and that the fact of cancellation had been published in 'Uttaranchal Darpan'. Alleging that the auction was cancelled by the Respondent under political influence and with ulterior motives, the Petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the Respondent to issue licence to the Petitioner in pursuance of the auction held. He has also prayed for quashing the cancellation order in case the auction has been cancelled as stated in the news published in 'Uttaranchal Darpan'.

(2.) THE Respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the Petitioner. According to the averments in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner participated in the auction as stated in the writ petition. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - before the auction as it was a condition for participating in the auction. The Petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 40,750/ - being 50% of the bid amount. Such deposit of 50% of the bid amount was required under the terms and conditions of the auction. However, the Respondent has categorically denied the c aim of the Petitioner that his bid was accepted by the Respondent. It is stated that the final decision in the matter was to be taken by the Municipal Board and that the Municipal Board in its meeting held on 31 -05 -2005, vide Resolution No. 4, decided to reject the offer of the Petitioner on the ground that it was less than the amount received in the previous year. The Municipal Board also decided to collect the parking fees through the employees of the Respondent. It is stated that the decision to reject the offer of the Petitioner was communicated to the Petitioner through a letter dated 04 -06 -2005 and that the said letter was sent to the Petitioner through Sri Ravindra Kumar, an employee of the Respondent. It is further stated that in the said letter the Petitioner was also requested to take back the amount of Rs. 65,750/ - deposited by him. According to the Respondent, after receiving letter' dated 04 -06 -2005 from the said Ravindra Kumar, the Petitioner refused to sign the receipt. It is also stated that the cancellation of the auction was published in the newspaper 'Uttaranchal Darpan' on 31 -05 -2005.