AKHILESHWAR KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner of CWJC No. 11723 of 2010 challenges the order cancelling the settlement made in his favour with respect to the fishing and water control rights of Raxaul Chor to Balmikinagar and Narkatiaganj Chor to Bhikhanatodi under the East Central Railway.

(2.) The reasons for cancellation is disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Railways wherein it has been stated that the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Narkatiaganj had not taken care to get the settlement advertised in the newspapers and advertisement was only pasted in the local offices of the Railways.

(3.) CWJC No. 9264 of 2010 has been filed by the Petitioner who is also an intervenor in the aforesaid writ application. His main grievance is that the settlement/ bid for the places described above should take place at Raxaul and not at Narkatiaganj. According to the Petitioner, whenever the procedure for bidding had taken place at Raxaul, it has fetched a higher price and thereby benefited the Railways. The exact figures have been provided in I.A. No. 7179 of 2010. This interlocutory application discloses that in the year 2003, the bid for the first section at Raxaul had fetched Rs. 6 lacs and the bid of the second section at Narkatiaganj had fetched only a sum of Rs. 2.75 lacs. Similarly, in the year 2007, the bid held for the first section at Raxaul had fetched Rs. 10 lacs, whereas the bid for the second section held at Narkatiaganj had fetched only a sum of Rs. 3.8 lacs. It is submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid figures, it appears that there is a vested interest in holding the bid at Narkatiaganj.