MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. ZILA PARISHAD BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent No. 3. Sri W. H. Khan, who has filed Vakalatnama to represent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. is not present.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to refund to him the amount of Rs. 10,100, with penal interest @ 15% per annum, paid to them as bid-money for contract for disposal of dead animals for the financial year 1991-92.

(3.) The relevant facts are these : The Zila Parishad, Banda, issued a notification dated 2.5.1991 notifying that it shall hold auction on 14.5.1991 for settling a contract for disposal of dead animals blockwise for the year 1991-92 and inviting public to participate therein. The petitioner participated in the auction for the village Sandasaril Nyay Panchayat Centre under Block Kamasin of the district Banda and offered a bid of Rs. 10,100. His bid was highest, and was accepted. He was directed to deposit the bid-money which he did vide receipts dated 14.5.1991 and 25.5.1991. Despite acceptance of the bid and deposit of the entire bid-money by the petitioner, the respondents did not confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Zila Parishad. Banda issued two notifications dated 3.6.1991 and 20.6.1991 fixing 10.6.1991 and 3.7.1991 for re-auction without cancelling the earlier auction or rejecting the bid of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner could not work under the contract for which he had offered highest bid which was accepted. The petitioner approached the respondents repeatedly for confirmation of the auction in his favour and execution of the agreement in pursuance thereof, but the respondents did not pay heed to his request. Eventually, the petitioner approached the respondents by his application dated 10.1.1992 for refund of the bid-money deposited by him. On receipt of the above application of the petitioner the respondents addressed to the petitioner a letter dated 3.2.1992 calling upon him to sign the agreement so that work order may be Issued to him. On inquiry by the petitioner the respondent informed him that the agreement would be only for the period expiring on 31.3.1992 while the petitioner had offered his bid for one complete financial year, commencing on 1.4.1991 and ending on 31.3.1992. In view of the fact that the contract offered to him was only for the remaining period of about two months of the financial year 1991-92. the petitioner asserts that he was entitled to have his bid-money refunded instead of accepting the offer given by the respondents.