SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the quashing of the order dated 3. 4. 1996 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ferozepur City, whereby auction for the collection of octroi duty, made on 20. 3. 1996, in petitioner's favour was stayed.

(2.) THE work relating to the collection of octroi duty was privatised in the State of Punjab. The State Government of Punjab decided to give contracts to private persons for collecting octroi duty. The Municipal Council, Ferozepur City, passed a resolution dated 5. 2. 1996 for the purpose of giving contract of collection of octroi duty to a private person by prescribed authority. a public auction for the collection of octroi duty for the financial year 1996-97 (1. 4. 1996 to 31. 3. 1997) was held on 20. 3. 1996 and the petitioner being the highest bidder in the public auction, was allotted the contract for a sum of Rs. 1,34,02,000/ -. The petitioner deposited, as required, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as security money and also furnished a Bank guarantee for Rs. 10,60,000/ -. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, vide his letter dated 22. 3. 1996, informed the petitioner that contract for the collection of octroi duty had been given to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner should furnish Bank guarantee equivalent to 1/10th of the bid amount and should also execute an agreement. The petitioner then executed an agreement dated 25. 3. 1996 and submitted it in pursuance of the letter received from the Executive Officer. However, the Executive Officer, vide his letter dated 3. 4. 1996, informed the petitioner that decision to auction the octroi has been stayed till further orders. The petitioner submitted a legal notice dated 13. 6. 1996 to the Municipal Council through its Executive Officer, seeking permission to start his work regarding the collection of octroi duty. He also submitted a letter dated 2. 7. 1996 to the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore. The petitioner had already collected the octroi on 1st and 2nd April, 1996 and, therefore, he claimed to have duly worked under the contract awarded to him through public auction. Since the Municipal Council did not permit the petitioner to resume his work, he has filed this writ petition in this High Court.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the Municipal Council, Ferozepore and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council have, in their joint reply, defended the stay order on the basis of a resolution adopted by the Municipal Council on 28. 3. 1996 whereunder it was decided to keep the auction of the octroi post pending for three months. The Executive Officer issued a direction to the petitioner in pursuance of that resolution only and, therefore, the Executive Officer acted under the authority of the Municipal Council. It is also stated that no agreement was actually executed and the copy of the agreement, on which the petitioner is relying, was not an agreement between the two parties, namely, the petitioner and the Municipal Council inasmuch as the agreement had not been signed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council and, therefore, there was no completed contract. It is also stated that the petitioner collected octroi duty for two days without authority.