BALARAM SAHOO Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR-CUM-EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has made a grievance that the auction of the Cycle Stand, which he was running for the year 2007 -08, has been settled in favour of O.P. No. 3 for the year 2008 -09 without following due procedure and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the bid.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the Petitioner is that the auction of the Cycle Stand was settled in his favour for the year 2007 -08. While the Petitioner was running the Cycle Stand, the Opposite Parties published a notice through a daily newspaper and also issued an official notice stating therein that the intending parties were required to participate in the tender to be held on 20.02.2008. Time and venue of such tender were also fixed. The tender related to 13 items of Sri Sri Dhabaleswar Jew and Sri Sri Sarpeswar Jew under Athgarh Endowment jurisdiction for the year of 2008 -09. The notice further contained that in case of failure to hold the auction of any item on 20.02.2008 auction for the same shall be carried on 21.02.2008 and in the event of failure to do so on 21.02.2008, same shall be carried on 22.02.2008. Pursuant to said notice, the Petitioner was present on the scheduled date and time notified by the Opposite Parties in the auction notice for the aforesaid three consecutive days. He was very much watchful in the office hour in those three days to take part in the tender. The Petitioner noticed that the office staff of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 avoided him to say anything about the auction. On those three days, no auction took place. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that on 04.03.2008, O.P. No. 3 was given the Cycle Stand on the basis of auction held pursuant to another notice No. 554 dated 20.02.2008 for the year 2008 -09. Being aggrieved by such action of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Petitioner has challenged the legality of the same in this Writ Petition. This Court on 28.03.2008 made it clear that if ultimately this Court finds that the settlement of auction in favour of the O.P. No. 3 has not been properly made, in that case the Court would cancel such settlement, but it allowed O.P. No. 3 to run the Cycle Stand with the condition that such running would abide by the result of the Writ Petition.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of O.Ps. 1 and 2 submitted that as per the Petitioner's own admission he took the Cycle Stand through auction for the year 2007 -08 as the highest bidder for Rs. 4.0 lakhs, but he suffered heavy loss. Since for the year 2008 -09 the Cycle Stand was auctioned and settled at Rs. 4,45,500/ - in favour of the highest bidder, i.e., O.P. No. 3, the Petitioner could have never made profit at the higher bid amount of Rs. 4,45,500/ -. The further case of O.Ps. 1 and 2 is that the auction was fixed to 20.02.2008 and many aspirants were present on that date. Since the Sub -Collector, Athgarh (O.P. No. 1), who was the Executive Officer, Athgarh Debottar, proceeded to Hyderabad on 20th morning for attending a National Level Conference on S.H.G. Federation, the auction did not take place on the scheduled date notified in auction notice dated 06.02.2008. Therefore, on 20.02.2008 notice was exhibited in the notice board postponing the auction date to 04.03.2008. Signatures of some of the aspirants were taken. Since presence of O.P. No. 1 was essential for law and order situation, it was felt necessary to postpone the auction in his absence on 20.02.2008. It is further submitted that when the question of adjournment arises it is not mandatory to issue notice of auction in the same manner as was done while issuing first notice of auction. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is not a fact that procedure was not followed and reasonable opportunity was not given to the aspirants through wide publication. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was hatching a conspiracy with other members/aspirants/bidders not to participate in the auction with an intention to take the sairat source on negotiation at lower amount. This attempt of the Petitioner did not materialize at the end as some aspirants fell out of the conspiracy and participated in the auction. To the above effect, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit.