VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th March, 2009 by which the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur accorded approval to the highest bid of Rs. 65 lacs offered by respondent no. 5, M/s Habib Cold Storage Private Limited, in the auction held on 9th March, 2009 for realisation of toll tax over the bridge Mehndighat situated on the river Ganga in District Kannauj.

(2.) NOTICE dated 27th January, 2009 was published in the newspaper by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Kanpur for auction of the right to realise toll tax on the aforesaid bridge by public auction on 9th March, 2009. The notice mentioned that the auction will be held under the supervision of a Committee consisting of the Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur as the Chairman and Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Kanpur, District Magistrate, Kanpur and the Additional Director, Finance as members of the Committee. It was also mentioned that the relevant documents should be submitted in the Office of the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur by 28th February, 2009 whereafter the list of eligible applicants would be declared on 7th March, 2009. The notice further provided that the persons/firms participating in the auction will have to comply with the terms and conditions of auction and the bid will be accepted by the Commissioner of the Division.

(3.) ON 7th March, 2009, the list of eligible and ineligible persons/firms was put up on the notice board. Six persons/firms were shown in the list of eligible persons/firms while the name of respondent no. 5 was mentioned in the list of ineligible applicants. The reason assigned for inclusion of the name of respondent no. 5 in the said list was non-compliance of Clauses 7 (11)Kha, 10 (25) (1), 11 (26), 12 (27) (I) and 12 (27) (II) of the terms and conditions of auction. Respondent no. 5 filed objections in writing on 9th March, 2009 against the inclusion of its name in the list of ineligible persons/firms and insisted that it should be declared eligible as all the aforesaid terms and conditions had infact been complied by it. The Chief Engineer examined the matter and after considering the objections and after having consultations with the Additional Commissioner (Administration), took a decision that the name of respondent no. 5 should be included in the list of eligible persons/firms. An additional factor which weighed in his mind for arriving at this decision was that participation in the auction by an additional bidder may benefit competitive bidding.