NASIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:--

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:-- It is said that there is a fruit and vegetable market within the municipal area of Gaya Municipality, which is known as Kedarnath Market. This market is annually leased out by the Municipality, by auction, to the highest bidder. On the 4th March, 1970, the Special Officer of the Municipality, which is under supersession, issued a public notice for auction of the market, to be held on the 20th March, 1970, for the financial year 1970-71. 9n the said date, it is said that the petitioner, along with other bidders, had participated in the auction and his bid was the highest, having gone up to Rs. 72,525/-. A copy of the bid-sheet has been given as Annexure 1. It is alleged that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 18,000/-including Rs. 2,000/- as security money. According to the petitioner, he was put in possession of the market from 1st April, 1970, and by letter dated the 1st April, 1970, written by the Special Officer, the petitioner was directed to deposit some other sums also by the 7th April, 1970. A copy of this letter has been given as Annexure 3. It is alleged that while the petitioner was awaiting execution of a lease deed, the Special Officer ordered him on the 2nd April, 1970 to hand over charge of the market to the Municipality at once, on the basis of a telegraphic order sent by the under Secretary, Local Self Government Department. A copy of the said order of the Government including the order of the Special Officer has been given as Annexure 4. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner had filed a title suit with a prayer for ad interim order of injunction, which was granted on the 6th April, 1970. It is alleged that the Munsif trying the title suit vacated the order of ad interim injunction on the 9th June, 1970 and thereafter the Government issued a subsequent order, which has been incorporated in Annexure 5. The substance of the orders incorporated in Annexures 4 and 5 is that by order of the State Government, the Special Officer, Gaya Municipality was to take over Khas possession of Kedarnath Market on the 1st July, 1970, without allowing the petitioner to collect toll from it, and the Special Officer was asked to reauction the market within a fortnight of the order by giving proper notice to all concerned. There is no denying that the petitioner is not in possession at present., whatever the nature of his alleged possession on the 1st April, 1970.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, and the main contention raised therein is, that, the Special Officer had altered condition No. 3 of the original notice for auction, just before the actual bidding, thereby enabling the successful bidder, namely, the petitioner of this case to, deposit only one-fourth of the total amount of the bid. According to this respondent, the change in the condition was favourable to the petitioner only, and may other intending bidders must have been put into disadvantage, as the change was made just before the actual bidding, and, therefore, the Government had stayed further action by their impugned letter of April 1970 [Condition No. 3 in the notice was to the effect that the successful bidder had to deposit the highest amount bid with the Municipality within twenty four hours, otherwise, the security deposited would be forfeited]. I may mention at this stage that according to this respondent, it was not admitted that the petitioner had been given possession of the market by the Municipality, in the absence of a duly executed and registered agreement. The Gaya Municipality has also filed a show-cause petition, in which the petitioner's alleged possession on the 1st April, 1970, has been denied. It is stated therein that the petitioner had not been put in possession by the Municipality, in the absence of the execution of the agreement, and that he had taken possession from the old lessee, which was wrongful. It is further stated in the show-cause petition that the final powers under the Municipal Act was vested in the Local Government, and, therefore, the petitioner had no remedy. The original condition No. 3 referred to above, has also been mentioned in this show-cause petition. The petitioner has filed two rejoinders, but it is not necessary to deal with them separately.