HARDWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Hardwar Rai, the Petitioner, and Sri K.P. Tripathi, the opposite party No. 4, are contractors, who take contract for collection of toll tax in the Public Works Department. In the year 1982 an advertisement was published in the news paper for auction of levy and collection of toll tax from the Bridge of Baghauch, Ram Nagar, District Deoria. The Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 along with others took part in the said auction, which admittedly took place on 24 -8 -90. At the said auction the bid of the Petitioner was to the extent of Rs. 2,51,100/ -, while of opposite party No. 4 was to the extent of Rs. 75,000/ -. According to the terms of the said auction in paragraph 13 of the said terms the auction was stated to be initially for two years but later on it was amended for three years. In paragraph 15 of the said terms it was also mentioned that the rate of auction will be annually. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the said amounts so offered at the time of said auction on 24 -8 -90 related to a period of three years or one year only. We shall advert to this part later on.

(2.) THE Executive Engineer/Superintendent of Works, PWD, Deoria, the opposite party No.3. however, received a letter dated 16 -1 -1991 from the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, the opposite party No. 2, that the lease has been granted in favour of Sri K.P. Tripathi, the opposite party No. 4, at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ -per year for a period of three years. Aggrieved against the same, the Petitioner, who claims to be the highest bidder at the said auction, has challenged the said grant of lease to opposite party No. 4 by the opposite party No. 2 and has accordingly prayed for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 16 -1 -91 a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure (6) to the writ petition. The other payment made in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to grant lease in favour of the Petitioner.

(3.) THIS position has been stoutly refuted by Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for Sri K.P. Tripathi, the opposite party No. 4. His submission is that the amount of bid at a figure of Rs. 2,51,100/ - was per annum and not for three years. Reliance has been placed in this connection by Sri Tripathi on certain endorsement made by the officers of the opposite party No. 3 on the auction sheet as well as the order dated 19 -9 -1990 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Goarkhpur accepting the bid of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,51,100/ - per year for a period of three years. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4, has also relied upon the Clause (15) of the aforesaid terms of auction which states that the bids at the auction shall be on yearly basis. However, since the Petitioner has not been granted any lease in the present case on his bid at the auction on 24 -8 -90 and in view of our findings and conclusions, which we will record later on while dealing the second argument, it does not appear to us to be expedient and necessary to go into this controversy. This submission, therefore, made on behalf of the Petitioner for the relief sought for by him is accordingly of academic interest only and we refrain from recording any opinion on this question.