ASLAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LISTS revised. None appears for respondents No. 3 to 7. We have, therefore, heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 only.

(2.) THE case of the petitions is that by order dated 9-3-1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) a contract for collecting carcasses in Block Chhata was given to the petitioner and he was permitted to carry on the contract for the year 1994-95 which will be ending on 31st March, 1995, because he was the highest bidder. Later on, respondent No. 7 approached the Hon'ble Minister respondent No. 5, who passed an order, which was communicated by respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, by an order dated 31-3-1994 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) that the contract already given to the petitioner be cancelled and contract for Blocks Chhata and Chauguha be given in favour of respondent No. 7 who was ready at the subsequent stage to offer Rs. 3 lacs for both the blocks.

(3.) FOR the reasons, aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-3-1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) communicating the order passed by respondent No. 5 is quashed. Petition allowed. .