DINESH L GAUDE Vs. PONDA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent, Municipal Council, had issued an advertisement on 9-7-1990 inviting bids for the purpose of leasing six shops belonging to respondent No. 1. As per this advertisement, there were three shops in category C bearing Nos. C-1, C-2 and C-4, admeasurings 6. 75 square metres each. There were three shops in D category bearing Nos. D-1, D-2 and D-3, each admeasuring 4. 28 square metres. The minimum bid for shops in C category was Rs. 600/- per month while for D category, the minimum bid fixed was Rs. 300/- per month. The advertisement further stated that the Council reserves the right to reject or accept any or every bid. The interested bidders were also required to deposit earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- and a non-refundable participation fee of Rs. 50/ -. Pursuant to this notice, an auction was held on 25-7-1990. The petitioner was the only bidder for shop No. D-2. The record of the auction has been produced before us. As per this record, the initial bid of the petitioner was Rs. 300/- which he raised to Rs. 350/ -. The noting further states:

(2.) ON 17th August, 1990, the petitioner received a letter bearing the date 10-8-1990 from the respondent No. 1 informing the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 had decided to re-auction the shops on 28-8-1990 and that the petitioner could collect the security deposit within 15 days. He was also informed that he could take part in the auction if he was interested. Re-auction has, accordingly, been held on 28-8-1990 after issuing an advertisement which contained terms similar to earlier notice of 25-7-1990. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made an application before the Collector on 23-8-1990 under section 293 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968. Under an interim Order of the Collector in this application, the re-auction of shop No. D-2 was stayed. Thereafter, the Collector after hearing both sides, by his order dated 12th October, 1990 has dismissed the application on the ground that the application does not come under the purview of section 293 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act of 1968. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present petition.

(3.) THE 1st respondent Council is in the hands of the Administrator appointed under section 298 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968. Under section 299, the Municipal Administrator so appointed is invested with all powers and functions, inter alia, of the Council as well as the Chief Officer. The respondents No. 1 has filed an affidavit-in-reply of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, in which he has set out that no contract has been entered into in the present case because the bids which were received at the auction held on 25-7-1990 were very low. The bids in respect of all the shops have, therefore, been rejected by the Administrator. He has set out in his affidavit the price for six shops fetched at an earlier auction. In respect of D type shops at an earlier auction the bids were as follows :---Shop No. D-1. . . . . . . . . . Rs. 1,030/-; shop No. D-2. . . . . . . . . . Rs. 1,280/-; shop No. D-3. . . . . . . . . . . Rs. 1,280/-; since the highest bids received at the auction of 25-7-1990 were less than half the earlier ones, the Administrator decided to re-auction the shops. He has also stated that at the subsequent auction held on 28-8-1990 for shop No. D-1 the highest bid received is of Rs. 750/- and that a contract in respect of shop No. D-1 is already executed with the highest bidder. The 1st respondent has very fairly stated that they are willing to give shop No. D-2 to the petitioner at the same rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The petitioner, however, is not willing to accept this offer. It is stated on his behalf that the lease amount of Rs. 750/- is very much on the higher side and it will not be economical for him to run the shop at this rate.