DAMBARUDHAR BARUA Vs. CHAIRMAN, LOCAL BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner complains against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagar, dated 5 -5 -54 and a Resolution of the Local Board, Sibsagar, dated 31 -5 -54. He prays that the said order of the Deputy Commissioner should be quashed by an appropriate Writ or direction, and the Board should be restrained from giving effect to its aforesaid resolution.

(2.) THE material facts lie in a short compass and are almost undisputed. The petitioner was the lessee of a 'hat' or market, known as the Simaluguri Hat, under the Sibsagar Local Board. The lease in favour of the petitioner having terminated, it was farmed out by public auction on 13 -2 -54 in the presence of the Chairman and some other members. The petitioner, along with Dharmakanta Gogoi, opposite party No. 3 to this petition, and one other man bid at the auction. His bid was Rs. 8,000/ - while that of Dharmakanta was Rs 8100/ -. The bid of Dharmakanta, which was the highest bid, was accepted by the persons conducting the sale who recommended that the lease of the 'Hat' should be granted to him. The bid list, with the proposal of the officers holding the sale, was in due course laid before a meeting of the Board on 30 -3 -54. There was also an objection by the petitioner. The minutes of the proceedings of that meeting of the Board show that the Board considered two rival proposals one in favour of the petitioner, the outgoing lessee who had also agreed to advance more as premium, and another in favour of the Opposite Party 3 who was the highest bidder. Votes were taken by secret ballot, and the Vice -Chairman of the Board who appears to have presided found, on counting, that the proposal in favour of settlement of the market with the petitioner was carried by a majority of 15 to 8, one of the members present being neutral.

(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the Chairman of the Local Board who are opposite parties to this petition and have shown cause, have not filed any counter -affidavit controverting the allegations. They have been content to send their replies through letters addressed to the Deputy Registrar. This procedure in my opinion, is quite unsatisfactory. Parties to an application or proceeding should not be allowed to address letters to an officer of the Court, but they should show cause through their counsel and by means of affidavits or petitions filed in the proceeding. I quite deprecate the procedure adopted by these officers in the present case, and I would not have taken any notice of these letters but for the fact that probably these officers may be unaware of the proper steps to be taken in connection with such applications. The Deputy Commissioner in his letter merely says that the resolution of the Board was suspended under Section 89, Assam Local Self -Government Act, and that if the highest bidder is not given settlement, it was likely to cause annoyance to the public.