SUDAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to cancel the appointment of respondent no. 6 (Sanjay Kumar Chandra) as collection agent for collection of market fee and ground rent for the Belaganj Bazar, and appoint the same to the petitioner, being the person with the highest offer, failing which it may be reauctioned.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 5 (Market Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gaya), issued a notice dated 5.1.2002 (Annexure 1), that auction shall be held for appointment of collection agent for Belaganj Bazar for the period 2002 -2003 (apart from various other markets not relevant in the present context) which, inter alia, stated that the auction shall be held on 21.1.2002 at 11.30 AM in the office of the Bazar Samiti, Chandauli, Gaya, failing which on 28.2.2002, and still failing which on 31.1.2002. It also stated that the persons desirous of participation in the auction shall have to deposit 10% of the predetermined minimum guarantee/reserve jama in cash before the auction. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had appeared before respondent no. 5 on 21.1.2002 at 10.30 AM intending to deposit 10% of the aforesaid amount with the request that he may be permitted to participate in the bid, vide his letter dt. 21.1.2002 (Annexure 2). The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 21.1.2002 (Annexure 3) before the Commissioner of Magadh Division that he intended to deposit the aforesaid 10% amount the same day at 1.0.30 AM, but the auction had already taken place at 10.30 AM instead of 11.30 AM. The application further stated that he was prepared to take the bid for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. No action was taken on this letter, presumably because the Commissioner is no authority under the Agricultural Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules thereunder. It appears from the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 2. to 5.(the authorities under the Act) that four persons including the petitioner and respondent no. 7 (Ashok Kumar Sharma) had submitted joint application dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure C) before the Boards Managing Director making a grievance of the manner in which the auction had taken place, and requesting for re -auction. It appears that the matter did not make such headway leading to the present writ petition which was instituted on 14.2.2002. It further appears from the pleadings of the parties that the offer of respondent no. 6 was for Rs. 2.69 lacs whereas the petitioner intended to offer Rs. 6 lacs. It is further relevant to state that the petitioner was the collection agent for the preceding year also. In view of this position, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to hand over a demand draft for the sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2. to 5.in Court as an interim measure and he was to continue to function as a collection agent until further orders of this Court as per the order dt. 18.3.2002 read with the order dt. 1.5.2002. In the meantime, the Boards Managing Director has enquired into the petitioners complaint and has placed on record his report dated 19.5.2002 which I shall consider at the appropriate place.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement itself stated that the auction shall be held on 21.1.2002 at 11.30 AM failing which on the subsequent dates stated therein, and the auction was instead held at 10.30 AM. Respondent no. 6 (Sanjay Kumar Chandra), who is sought to be appointed as the Collection agent has made the offer of Rs. 2.61 lacs, whereas the petitioner was prepared to offer a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. This is obviously a cause of gross favouritism. In his submission, the auction took place surreptitiously to help a favourite, which lacks transparency and is, therefore, fit to be set aside.