RAHUL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has come to this Court making a prayer therein that the Gaya Municipality should be directed to execute an agreement with respect to the settlement of a sairat regarding the hoarding in the whole of the Gaya municipal area for the years 2010-13.

(2.) The Petitioner applied for the settlement of the ghat on an advertisement issued as contained in Annexure-1 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,53,250/- as security amount and Rs. 1,83,335/- as the auction amount for the year 2010-11 as against the total bid amount of Rs. 35,50,000/-. The Gaya Municipal Corporation has not issued an agreement in favour of the Petitioner

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents in which it has been stated that the Gaya Municipal Corporation, in its Board meetings dated 23.2.2010 and 18.3.2010 had decided that the contract should be issued in favour of M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited on a bid amount of Rs. 37,00,712/- which was 10 per cent more than the bid amount of the preceding years. In fact, the Board had decided to extend the agreement in favour of M/s Shubh Shourya Infrastructure Private Limited. It is the stand of the Gaya Municipal Corporation that the Commissioner of the Gaya Municipal Corporation was transferred. The new Commissioner issued the advertisements without considering the decisions of the Board. Later, the Commissioner who had advertised for the settlement of the hoarding was removed/transferred as Commissioner of the Gaya Municipal Corporation. After his transfer, the Gaya Municipal Corporation has not taken final decision with respect to the fate of the Petitioner. The main submission on behalf of the Board is that once the Board had taken a decision to enhance the settlement amount to Rs. 37,00,712/-, the settlement made on a lesser amount was not in accordance with law as such a settlement will cause a loss of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the Gaya Municipal Corporation.