LAWS(ORI)-1988-7-33

SK. LOKMAN ALLI Vs. COLLECTOR, BALASORE AND ORS.

Decided On July 13, 1988
Sk. Lokman Alli Appellant
V/S
Collector, Balasore And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ applications involve a common question of law and are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1704 of 1988 was the highest bidder in respect of Lot No. 1 and Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1705 of 1988 was the highest bidder in respect of Lot No. 2. The Tahasildar, Balasore, issued a notification on 22 -4 -1988 stating therein that the two sairat sources of Balanga river would be put to auction on 30 -4 -1988. The said notification has been annexed as Annexure -1 to both the writ petitions. It has been asserted in the writ applications that though the Petitioners in both the writ applications were the highest bidders in respect of Lots 1 and 2 respectively, instead of settling the sairat with the Petitioners, the Tahasildar settled the same with opposite party No. 4 on the grounds stated in the order dated 30th of April, 1988. The said order has been quoted in extenso in the writ application and has also been filed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3. The Petitioner in each of the writ applications being aggrieved by the said order carried an appeal to the Sub -Divisional Officer who is the appellate authority under the rules. The said appeals having been dismissed, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand contends that in view of the specific clause contained in the auction sale notice (Annexure -1) to the effect that the authority is not bound to accept the highest bid the Petitioner in each of the writ applications does not acquire any right merely by virtue of being the highest bidder and, therefore, there is no legally enforceable right to be enforced in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further contended that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the orders which can be interfered with by a writ of certiorari.