ROZA HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the facts leading to the decision of the case on the point of law are only required to be dealt with without going into other controversial factual position.

(3.) In order to settle 19 sand ghat at a time, a tender notice was published, which is Annexure 1, by the Collector, Bhojpur. Three dates for holding auction were mentioned as 15 -12 -2000, 22 -12 -2000 and 29 -12 -2000 indicating therein that if for any reason, the auction could not be held on 15 -12 -2000, the same would be held on the next date, Similarly, if even on the next date auction is not held, the same would be held on 29 -12 -2000. Time was also mentioned as 11 a.m. Some conditions have been laid down in the auction notice itself, which were required to be fulfilled by the prospective tenderers. There is no dispute that on 15 -12 -2000 and on 22 -12 -2000, due to pre -occupation of the Collector the bid could not be held and the same was held on 29 -12 -2000. The offer of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'respondent No. 4') for Rs. 5,30,00,000/ -was accepted but the petitioner, it is stated, intervened and offered more bid money. The Collector in order to augment the state finance called for respondent No. 4 but he was not found in the office of the Collector. The Collector thus deferred the bid for the next date, i.e. 30 -12 -2000 and directed to intimate all concerned. Notice for this fresh date was alleged to be served on respondent No. 4 but it appears from the record (Annexures 4 -B and 4 -C) that the office of respondent No. 4 was found closed and no other of its employee was ready to accept the notice. The Collector was of the view that respondent No. 4 deliberately refused to accept the notice/information of the next date of bidding i.e. 30 -12 -2000. The petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 5,90,00,000/ - as against the offer of respondent No. 4 of Rs. 5,30,00,000/ - and the Collector having found the petitioner as highest bidder accepted his bid. By his letter dated 30 -12 -2000, accepting the bid of the petitioner, the Collector sent the same for formal approval of the Secretary -cum -Commissioner (respondent No. 1). This letter is Annexure 4 which reveals the facts and circumstances under which the Collector had accepted the bid of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 30 -12 -2000 (Annexure 5) respondent No. 1, instead of either accepting or rejecting the proposal of the Collector for settlement in favour of the petitioner, cancelled the said settlement and granted the lease in favour of respondent No. 4 on the ground that respondent No. 4 was ready to give fifty thousand more bid money against the offer given by the petitioner before the Collector on 30 -12 -2000. He further directed that from the midnight of 30 -12 -2000, possession should be given to respondent No. 4. This order of respondent No. 1 dated 30 -12 -2000, as contained in Annexure 5, is under challenge.