ARAVINDALAL MEHETO Vs. NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks annulment of the cancellation of the lease of the by -weekly vegetable market by the Notified Area. Council, Titilagarh.

(2.) AT an auction for the lease of the by -weekly vegetable market, the Petitioner's bid was the highest, being of the amount of Rs. 65,500/ -. The auction was held pursuant to notice dated February 23, 1984 as per Annexure -A/1. The terms and conditions were contained in Annexure -B/1. The crucial terms relevant for our purpose were that the bidder whose bid would be accepted would deposit 50 per cent of the bid amount before March 20, 1984. In default, the security deposit was to be forfeited and the market would be put to fresh auction. The balance 50 per cent of the bid amount was to be paid in two equal installments one by July 31, 1984 and the other by November 30, 1984. Failure to pay any of the instalment would entail cancellation of the lease and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the bidder. The agreement incorporating the prescribed terms and conditions and duly executed by the successful bidder was to be filed within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the bid. In default, the bid was to be cancelled and the market was to be put to fresh auction.

(3.) THE Petitioner has challenged the action of the Notified Area Council cancelling his lease on various grounds: namely, the meeting did not have the quorum on the day the resolution was passed; cancellation of the lease of the market was not the subject -matter in the agenda for discussion and decision and the constellation was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further averred that without following the process of auction, the Council was incompetent to settle the market with opposite party No. 2 through negotiation.