DEO KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents to enter into an agreement with the petitioner for collection of tolls on Mahatma Gandhi Setu (Bridge), on the basis of public auction held on 6.4.2000 where the petitioner was the highest bidder and fulfilled all the norms and conditions stipulated in the auction notice (Annexure -1).

(2.) THE State Government issued on advertisement which was published in local dailies on 25.3.2000 (Annexure -1), inviting tenders for settlement of the contract for collection of tolls from the Mahatma Gandhi Setu which connects the township of Patna and Hajipur spanning river Ganga, from the mid -night of 13.5.2000 to the mid -night of 12.5.2001, under the Bihar Tolls Rules, 1979 (Amendment 1982). The petitioner submitted his tender for Rs. 7,13,00,000/ -. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - by way of security money on 3.4.2000, vide demand draft dated 3.4.2000 (Annexure -2), along with his tender papers. The auction took place on 6.4.2000, and the petitioners bid of Rs. 7,13,00,000/ - was the highest. As per the terms of the advertisement read with the oral directions of the respondent authorities, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the bid amount by way of demand draft amounting to Rs. 70,13,000/ - for which the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Gulzarbagh, granted receipt dated 6.4.2000 (Annexure -3), to the petitioner. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 2.00,000/ - plus Rs. 70,13,000/ - completed 10% of the bid amount. The petitioner was waiting for the formal agreement to be executed, but instead noticed an advertisement dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure -4), inviting fresh tenders for the same settlement. This appeared to him in supersession of the aforesaid advertisement dated 25.3.2000 (Annexure -1). Hence the writ petition.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned action whereby the petitioners bid pursuant to the first advertisement dated 25.3.2000 (Annexure -1) has not been finalised and has instead been cancelled, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the respondent authorities accepted 10% of the bid amount they be estopped from rescinding it. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621 (M/s. Motilal Padamapat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. X State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.). He also relies on the passage occurring in Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 16, paragraph 957, page 844 (4th Edition, the Hailsham Edition) which is relevant in the present context and quoted hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :