KRISHNA PRASD Vs. NOTIFIED AREA OBRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the highest bidder at the auction held on 29-3-1989 regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 in the Notified area, Obra, district Sonbhadra. THE petitioner has attached annexures '1' and '2' to the petition to demonstrate that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money and a sum of Rs. 28,250/- was paid as the first instalment. Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that the papers were sent to the Collector, district Sonbhadra regarding the highest bid at the auction in favour of the petitioner. Annexure '6' indicates that the Prabhari Adhikari had accepted the highest bid in favour of the petitioner. Annexure '5' indicates that on the application of one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, the proceedings for auction held on 29-3-1989 in favour of the petitioner should be set aside and if the aforesaid Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi deposites 1/4th of the higher offer made by him within three days, his offer should be treated as the first bid and fresh auction should be done. Annexure '7' indicates that further proceedings regarding fresh auction is to be held. Annexure '8' dated 30-4-1989 indicates that re-auction regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 is to take place.

(2.) IN the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has prayed for quashing the order dated 14-4-1989, 19-4-1989 and 14-5-1989 contained in annexures '5', '7' and '10' as is evident from relief (i) claimed in the writ petition. The second prayer made in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the peaceful working of the petitioner as thekedar for collecting tahbazari within the Notified area Obra, district Sonbhadra and thereafter the general relief has been claimed.

(3.) WE have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and we have gone through the material attached with he writ petition, supplementary affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. In our opinion the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure '5' is patently erroneous and illegal as it has been rendered without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have emphasised that the highest bid offered by the petitioner required acceptance by the District Magistrate. Therefore, even if no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14-4-1989 contained in annexure '5' does not suffer from any error of law and it is immune from being quashed. No specific bye-law or rules has been placed before us in support of the contention that the highest bid at the auction required acceptance by the District Magistrate. It would not be out of place to mention here that our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 7 and 15 of annexure '3' and it has been emphasised that the bid required acceptance but a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs does not indicate that the acceptance by the Collector was necessary in the facts and circumstances or this case. Rather, annexure '6' of the writ petition indicates that the offer of the petitioner had been accepted by the Prabhari Adhikari.