THE STATE OF ASSAM Vs. KUNJA KISHORE SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Assam is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.83 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar, whereby the appeal by the State (Defendant in the suit) against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.82 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1. Hailakandi, was dismissed.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Respondent bad offered bid of Rs. 29,000/ - for sale of Galacherra PWD Ferry at an auction held on 27.4.73 for 1973 -74. The bid was accepted. The Plaintiff was required to deposit 1/4th of the bid money within three days. The Plaintiff failed to make the deposit, whereupon a fresh auction was held and the highest bid thereat was Rs. 23,100/ -, at which the ferry was settled with Anr. person. The Plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 5192.20 P. as loss sustained by the Government on account of the Plaintiff 's failure to deposit the bid money. The Plaintiff did not make the payment where upon a Bakijai Case was started against him. The Plaintiff thereupon filed the suit for declaration that the Bikijai case was illegal and also for injunction to restrain the Defendant from recovery of the amount. The Defendant the present Appellant contested the suit and Pleaded that the State had suffered loss on account of the Plaintiff's failure to abide by the terms of auction at which his bid Was accepted, and consequently the Plaintiff was liable for compensation to the State. The Bakijai case was correctly started in pursuance of the provisions of the Public Damands Recovery Act, and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , the State has come in appeal and Sri K.K. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing on its behalf, submitted that he suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and also by Section 34 of the Northero India Ferries Act, 1978 Shri Mahanta has also submitted that the State had sustained loss because the Plaintiff even after his bid had been accepted had not deposited the kist money and since the State had suffered (sic) for the period until the ferry was settled afresh, the Plaintiff was liable for the loss.