PARAMANANDA MALLIK Vs. COLLECTOR DHENKANAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the Petitioner challenges the auction held on 12 -4 -1999 by the Notified Area Council. Bhuban, in respect of Dalar Ferry Ghat - for the year 1999 -2000. The main ground of challenge is that even though the Petitioner had offered a higher amount (Rs. 85,009/ -), the same was not recorded and he was forced by the officials of the Notified Area Council (for short "the N; A.C.") to sign the bid -sheet wherein his offer was recorded as Rs. 80,000/ -. It is alleged that the officials of the N.A. C. threatened the Petitioner by saying that if he did not put his signature on the bid -sheet, his security deposit and earnest money would not be refunded and, therefore, the Petitioner had no other option than putting his signature. But immediately thereafter, on 13 -4 -1999 he wrote a letter of objection to the Collector, Dhenkanal, vide Annexure -2, intimating that though he was prepared to offer Rs. 85,0001 -, the said bid was not recorded and the N.A. C. settled 'the auction with opposite party No. 3, whose bid was for Rs. 80,0501 -. On receipt of the aforesaid objection, the Additional District Magistrate, Dhenkanal directed the Executive Officer of the N. A: C. by his letter dated 13 -4 -1999 (Annexure -3) not to make any agreement with the bidder till finalization of the matter.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the N.A.C. has produced the relevant records. He draws our attention to a letter written by one Kanga Mallick addressed to the Collector, Dhenkanal. This letter is also dated 13 -4 -1999 and it has been mentioned therein that he (Kanga) was the highest bidder by offering Rs. 1.65.000/ -, but the Ghat was not settled with him, 'and was put to re -auction. Golakh Chandra Mallick (opposite party No. 3 herein), who had originally offered Rs. 1,60,000/ -, was allowed to' participate in the re -auction and the Ghat was settled with him for Rs. 80,0501 -. According to the learned Counsel, such letters with vague allegations have been written by the unsuccessful bidders. Annexure -2 being such a letter, no notice of the same should be taken. Learned Counsel for the N.A.C. also drew our attention to the bid -sheet, which has been signed by all the bidders including the Petitioner who had taken part in the auction. He submitted that after the last bid was offered, signatures were obtained in the bid -sheet. The bid -sheet shows that the Petitioner's highest bid was for Rs. 80,0001 -. Learned Counsel also pointed out that in the previous years when the same Ferry Ghat was auctioned by the Grama Panchayat, the highest amount collected was always below Rs. 20,000/ -.

(3.) THE above facts would clearly indicate that the Petitioner has not been able to prove his allegation that he had been precluded from bidding higher amount or that his higher offer had not been recorded in the bid -sheet. He has put his signature in the bid -sheet which indicates that his highest offer was for Rs. 80.000/ -. To add to it, it has also been admitted at the Bar that on the same day, the security deposit and the earnest money has been withdrawn by the Petitioner. Therefore, the objection letter written on the next day of the bid - cannot be taken to be bona fide and the order of the Additional Magistrate, who had no locus stand 'with regard to the auction, is of no assistance to the Petitioner,.