UPADHYA AND CO. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition No. 32974 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 22439 of 1992 are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 32974 of 1991 has prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 4.11.1991 Annexure -3 to the petition and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioner of collecting the fee over the Shastri Bridge and for a mandamus directing the respondents to accept the contract in favour of the petitioner of realising the fee over Shastri Bridge in respect of auction dated 29.10.91 for the period 1991 -94. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. We have also perused the two orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court communicated through a letter of the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of India to the Registrar of this Court vide letter dated 22.4.96. These orders have been passed in S.L.P. No. 9835 of 1994 State of U.P. and others v. M/s. Upadhyaya & Company, on 14.7.94 and on 22.4.96. The Supreme Court has expressed its shock over certain interim orders passed by this Court in these writ petitions.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that there is a bridge called Shastri Bridge at National Highway No. 2 over river Ganges near Allahabad. Petitioner has alleged that he was awarded a contract to collect the toll fee on the said bridge for one year from 24.11.90 to 23.11.91 and the contract money for this period of one year was Rs. 85,76,000/ -. Photo copy of the agreement is Annexure -1 to the petition. It was alleged in paragraph -3 of the petition that this contract period was going to expire on 23.11.1991. The respondents published an advertisement on 6.9.1991 in the news papers inviting applications from prospective bidders for further auction for a period of 3 years (from 1991 to 1994) of the right to collect the fee over the bridge in question. The petitioner has alleged that he completed all the formalities and he has alleged in paragraph -5 of the petition that he was the highest bidder in the auction held on 29.10.1991 for these 3 years and his bid was Rs. 88,00,000/ - per year. In para -6 of the petition it is alleged that on 4.11.91 the petitioner received a notice from respondent No. 3 in which the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of collection of fee over Shastri Bridge to the officials of respondent No. 3 on 24.11.1991. A true copy of the said notice is Annexure -3 to the petition. In para -7 of the petition it is alleged that immediately after receipt of notice dated 4.11.91 the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3 in which the petitioner requested that respondents should not interfere with the right of the petitioner to collect the fee over Shastri Bridge. True copy of the said representation is Annexure -4 to the petition. It is alleged in para -20 of the petition that the Commissioner, Allahabad, did not take any decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.1.1991. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in its order dated 14.7.94 has observed that the result of the interim order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 24.6.92 is that while permitting the petitioner, who claims to be entitled to collect the toll fee over Shastri Bridge to collect the same at the revised rates (which are practically double the previous rate), the Government was restrained from enhancing the bid money, which means the Government could not get the benefit of the revised rate. The Supreme Court therefore observed that the said interim order was an unusual order which results in unjust enrichment of the petitioner to the detriment of public revenues and that the said order was wholly unjustified and one which has the tendency to shake the confidence of the people in the judiciary.