BAIJ NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G.S. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Baij Nath, Mr. Ashok Singh for respondents No. 4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None was present for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) In the instant writ petition, legality of the public auction held for allotment of ponds No. 3335 and 5932, respectively, in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5, situating in village Dubari, Pargana Nathoopur, Tahsil Madhuban, district Mau has been challenged. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the previous allottee of both the ponds and had a right for renewal of the allotment as well as for taking part as a bidder in the fresh auction but the respondents No. 2 and 3 held the public auction without making publication of the advertisement of the proposed auction in two daily newspapers. Due to noncompliance of the rules in making wide publication of the advertisement, the eligible persons including the petitioner could not take part in the public auction held under the supervision of the respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 31943 of 2002. Ram Bharosey Lal v. State of U.P., and submitted that the auction was against the verdict of the aforesaid Division Bench.

(3.) In the aforementioned case, the Division Bench has observed as follows: