BASHISHTHA NARAIN PANDEY Vs. COMMISSIONER BASTI DIVISION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bashishtha Narain Pandey, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned auction proceedings dated 30-1-2002 and all consequential proceedings for the bridge known as 'Prabhu Dayal Vidyarthi Van Ganga Bridge', Siddharth Nagar. He further seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the right in favour of the petitioner to collect toll on the aforementioned bridge and/or in the alternative commanding the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Executive Engineering Provincial Khand, P.W.D., Siddarth Nagar, to reauction the said bridge after following the procedure established by law and Rules 1980.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : An auction notice has been published by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Khand, P.W.D., Siddharth Nagar, respondent No. 2, in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 24-12-2001 for settlement of the right to collect the toll on the bridge Farenda Naugarth-Barhni, Shravasti Road 63 Kms. known as Prabhu Dayal Vidyarthi Van Ganga Bridge, Siddharth Nagar. The terms and conditions have been mentioned in the auction notice. In the conditions it is stipulated that the tenderer will have to enclose along with the tender form a solvency certificate and character certificate issued by the District Magistrate of his home district, which should not be less than the price offered by him and should not be more than three months old. The terms and conditions also provide that Part-II of the tender shall be opened first and if all the documents which have been filed and security money deposited are in order, only then Part I of the tender shall be opened and the tenderer shall be permitted to take part in the auction. The Condition Nos. 3, 5 and 14 are reproduced below :

(3.) The petitioner as also the respondent No. 3 Abdul Rehman and respondent No. 4 Anup Kumar Pandey submitted their tenders. According to the petitioner only his tender form and that of respondent No. 4, were in order. However, the respondent No. 2 had included the name of respondent No. 3 also and permitted all the persons to participate in the auction.