TULSI SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) NEPARPATTY Ferry was put up for public auction on the 1st of January, 1961 for the year 1961 -62. This ferry has been declared as a public ferry and the right to collect toll has to be auctioned for different periods in accordance with the provisions of Section 8of the Northern India Ferries Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The Petitioner offered the highest bid. His offer was for Rs. 4,200/ -. In the said auction, one Indradeo Singh also offered Rs. 4,050/ - and the offer of Opposite Party No. 4, Phukan Chandra Gohain, was Rs. 3,000/ -. The conducting officer under the provisions of Section 8, Paragraph (3) of the Act has got a right to reject the highest bid on recording sufficient reasons. The conducting officer by his order dated the 23rd January 1961 directed the settlement of the right to collect toll with Phukan Chandra Gohain who had offered Rs. 3,000/ - at the auction. He refused to settle the right of collection of toll with the present Petitioner who was admittedly the highest bidder. The order runs as follows:

(3.) THE second case relied upon by Mr. Goswami also in our opinion, is not an authority for the proposition contended for by him. The only question which came up for consideration was whether the order passed by the Government under Section 53A of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, appointing an executive officer, was a judicial or a quasi -judicial order and amenable to a writ of certiorari or not. Various reasons were given for the contention that the order pass ed by the Government was a quasi judicial order. Those were repelled. One of the reasons given was that the statute requires recording of reasons in that was not considered sufficient by the Supreme Court to make the order as one of a quasi judicial body. It is not contended in the present case that the conducting officer while refusing to (sic) with the highest bidder acts in a quasi judicial capacity and order passed by the conducting officer is amenable to a writ of writ certiorari. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that ordinarily under Rule 19 and Section 8 paragraph (3) of the Act it is the highest bidder who is entitled to the settlement of the right to collect tolls. If the conducting officer does not choose to settle it with the highest bidder, he has got to record his reasons. The reasons are to be consistent with the spirit of the law and it should not mean that there should be no reasons at all. Section 8 paragraph 3 of the Act provides as follows: