RAHUL PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents is permitted to make necessary correction at page one of the counter affidavit.

(2.) THE matter relates to settlement of Mahatma Gandhi Setu, Patna for collection of tolls for the year 2000 -2001. Pursuant to the advertisement auction was held in the month of March, 2000. The highest bid was Rs. 7.20 crores which was cancelled on the ground that it is less than reserve Jama of Rs. 11 crores. Second auction was held pursuant to the advertisement in the month of May, 2000 and the highest bid was Rs. 7.51 crores but the same was cancelled on the same ground. Third time auction was held and the highest bid was Rs. 7.50 crores of the petitioner but the same was also cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued fixing 21.7.2000 for holding auction, annexure -2. In the year 1997 -98 collection of toll was made through department and collection was Rs. 4,63,52,000/ -. In the year 1998 -99 collection through department was Rs. 4,41,93,000/ -. In the year 1999 -2000 settlement was made for Rs. 10 crore with one Jitendra Prasad Singh which expired on 14.5.2000. Thrice auction was held but it was cancelled. In such a situation, instead of collection through department Jitendra Prasad Singh was asked to collect tolls for one month i.e. from 15.5.2000 to 14.6.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 8.60 crores. The aforesaid Jitendra Prasad Singh wrote a letter to the respondents informing that he is not in a position to collect tolls beyond 14.6.2000 but the respondents asked him to continue for further period of one month i.e. from 15.6.2000 to 14.7.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 8 crores, an -nexure -5. Again aforesaid Jitendra Prasad Singh was allowed to collect tolls till 27.7.2000 at the average of annual reserve Jama of Rs. 7.51 crores vide letter dated 17.7.2000. It has been alleged that action of the respondents is arbitrary and against the well settled rule of law and as such writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue of direction to the respondents to make settlement for collection of tolls in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of the respondents must be certain and predictable but in the instant case action of the respondents is arbitrary as the respondents cancelled the bid thrice without assigning any reason which indicates that the action of the respondents is not certain and not predictable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have right to cancel the auction without assigning any reason. The highest bid was less than the reserve Jama and the Government has not accepted the same.