SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the order dated 31.3.1994, passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure P -2, thereby canceling the lease granted to the petitioner for the collection of the levy of tolls at the bridge located on Morena -Sabalgarh -Ater road at Kilometer 85/2, on the Chambal river.

(2.) THE petitioner was allowed the lease at an auction, being the highest bidder, for Rs. 3,83,000/ - for a period of six months. Though the bid was for the period 1.11.93 to 15.6.94, the petitioner was given possession of the said bridge for the collection of tolls, only on 24.12.93, as on that date the agreement in that regard was executed. It is con tended by the petitioner that suddenly, without disclosing any reason, the non -petitioner No. 2 terminated his lease agreement with effect from 1.4.1994 under Annexure P -2 as such its quashing is sought.

(3.) THE petitioner was given possession of the bridge only on 24.12.93 whereas under the items of the auction, the lease agreement was to commence from 1.11.93 and the final bid was offered for that period. The respondents have themselves alleged to credit and adjust Rs. 89,500/ - for the period in which the petitioner could not operate the lease as per the terms of the bid. The petitioner has also contended that under the auction notice, seven instalments were fixed for making the payment of the accepted bid amount. The petitioner, while giving details of payments in his rejoinder, stated that he had deposited Rs. 3,05,300/ - by 21st of March, 1994 though this amount included the deposit of Rs. 42,000/ - with the United Commercial Bank in the name of respondent No. 2. From the averred calculations it is tried to be shown by the petitioner that he was, in fact, required to deposit only 2,93,500/ - after adjusting the amount of Rs. 89,500/ - in the contract money Rs. 3,83,000/ -. During the pendency of this petition, under the order of this Court a further amount of Rs. 24,000/ - is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner, for the continuance of the order of stay passed by this Court and only on such deposit the respondents had allowed him to continue to operate the lease. Although from the details of the payment as shown by the petitioner, in his additional rejoinder, it appears that there were some defaults in the payment of instalments within the stipulated time, but the petitioner could not be solely held liable for such defaults. The draft of the lease agreement appears to have been prepared for the situation when the lease was to commence from 1.11.93, but it was executed only in 24.12.93. The date of first instalment, as shown in the agreement, appears to have been fixed in view of its original commencement from 1.11.93. However, the respondent admits the payment of 1st instalment in time.