SARDAR SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he respondents issued a notice for auction of the right to collect tolls over Shastri Bridge at Allahabad. One of the conditions in the auction notice was, that the bidder had to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 (One lac fifty thousands) as earnest money through a Demand Draft of the State Bank of India. The petitioner participated in the auction but his bid was not the highest. The bid of the highest bidder was accepted which was communicated to him by letter dated 14-7-1983. When the petitioner's bid was not accepted he made an application on 20-8-1983 before the respondents for refund of the earnest money deposited by him in accordance with the term and condition of the auction notice. The earnest money not having been refunded to the petitioner he made, another application on 5-9-1983 but without any result. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund earnest money deposited by him.

(2.) The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. Respondents have also filed supplementary counter affidavit, in para 4 of which it has been alleged that after the highest bidder declined to accept the contract for collection of the toll, petitioner's bid being the second highest, was accepted. It has been alleged by the respondents that acceptance of petitioner's bid was communicated to him vide letter dated 15-10-1983. In the rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits the petitioner has denied the receipt of any such letter and also its knowledge.

(3.) In the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated by the respondents that the aforesaid letter dated 15-10-1983 which was sent to the petitioner by registered post returned undelivered and thereafter the District Magistrate required the Tehsildar to serve it on the petitioner. Tehsildar deputed a peon to serve that order on the petitioner personally. The peon has submitted a report which has been filed as annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, according to which when the peon went to the house No.3/9A, G.T. Road, he did not find petitioner or any member of his family and on the other hand the house was being occupied by a Bengali family, who informed him that the petitioner has gone to Punjab. Thereupon he pasted the order dated 15-10-1983 on the gate of the said house. Treating it as sufficient service of the order dated 15-10-1983 on the petitioner, the respondents have forfeited the security.