BAIJ NATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the fourth respondent offered tenders for the lease of foils of the ferries on the river Jamuna connorting the town of Hamirpur with the village of Rampur and on the river Betwa connecting the town of Hamirpui with the village of Kuchecha in the district of Hamirpur. Both the ferries are public ferries. This was pursuant to a notice dated May 17, 1963 issued by the Executive Engineer, P. W. D., Banda inviting tenders for the collection of tolls in respect of the aforesaid two public ferries. It was stated in the notice that the period of the lease would end on October 15, 1966, "even if there is some delay in handing over at the beginning". The tender made by the fourth respondent was higher than that offered by the petitioner in respect of the two ferries. On June 19, 1963, the Commissioner accepted the tender of the fourth respondent jointly for both the ferries for Rs. 7,87,906.00and sanctioned the lease in his favour under Section 8 of the Northern India Ferries Act for collection of tolls of both the ferries for three years commencing October 16, 1963. The lease was not executed in favour of the fourth respondent for a considerable time and the State Government continued to manage the two ferries directly until February 28, 1966. It was only on that date that the possession of the two ferries was handed over to the fourth respondent. The State Government proposed to give the lease for three years from the date of delivery of possession ana the fourth respondent accepted that proposal. The petitioner, however, requested the State Government to invite tenders for the period commencing October 16, 1966 and stated that he was ready to offer Rs. 1 lac in excess of the tender made by the fourth res-pendent. The State Government did not accept the request of the petitioner and executed the lease in favour of the fourth respondent for the period February 28, 1966 to February 28, 1969 on the basis of the tender offered by that respondent in 1963.

(2.) THE petitioner now applies under Article 226 of the Constitution against the grant of the lease to the fourth respondent and prays for mandamus directing the State Government, the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer to invite tenders in respect of the two ferries for the period commencing October 16, 1966.

(3.) THE petitioner says that Section 8 contemplates the letting of the tolls in accordance with a procedure under which the members of the public generally will be permitted to offer tenders or bid or otherwise participate so that every one of them is entitled to apply for letting of the tolls in his favour. It is not open to the authorities, urges the petitioner, to let out the tolls to an individual without throwing the matter open to the public generally Accord-ing to the petitioner, letting out tolls by private negotiation with an individual is not within the contemplation of Section 8. Therefore, it is pointed out, when the State Government sanctioned a lease in favour of the fourth respondent for the period February 28, 1966 to February 28, 1969; it did so by private negotia-tion with a single individual and inasmuch as the procedure adopted precluded the public generally from entering upon the scene and applying also for the lease, the provisions of Section 8 were contravened. After careful consideration. I am unable to accept the contention.