RAKESH KUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to cancel the settlement made in favour of respondent no. 6 (Kamlesh Kumar), appointing him as collection agent in terms of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Marketing Act read with the Rules thereunder for collection of market fee and ground rent for Koch Bazar, district Gaya, and for the consequential directions.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 4 (the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gaya) had published an advertisement (Annexure -1), whereby it was announced that auction shall be held on 21.1.02, failing which on 28.1.02, still failing which on 31.1.02 for appointment of collection agent to collect market fee and ground rent for the Koch Bazar, apart from various other markets/ Hat not relevant in the present context. The bid took place on 21.1.02 on which date the offer of one Ashok Kumar was of Rs. 7.50 lacs and that of respondent no. 6 (Kamlesh Kumar) was of Rs.

(3.) 31 lacs. Ashok Kumar did not deposit the requisite amount and did not complete the formalities which gave way to respondent no. 6 who has completed the formalities. The petitioner submitted his application dt. 21.1.02 (Annexure 2) to the Chairman of the Market Committee that he was prepared to offer a sum of Rs. 5.05 lacs and, therefore, he may be appointed as the collection agent, his offer being next to Ashok Kumar. Responding to the petitioners said letter dt. 21.1.02 (Annexure -2), respondent no. 5 (the Market Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gaya), sent his letter dt. 22.1.02 (Annexure -3), to the petitioner, informing him that reauction is possible provided he deposits Rs. 2,52,500/ - within twenty -four hours, being half of the amount offered by him failing which the offer will be made to respondent no. 6, the second highest bidder. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,52,500/ - on 22.1.02, as is evidenced by the money receipts marked Annexures 4 and 5. This was followed by the petitioners complaint dt. 29.1.02 (Annexure -6), addressed to the Director (Vigilance), complaining that his bid of Rs. 5,05,000/ - made at the auction held on 21.1.02 was not recorded in the bid sheet. He has in any case deposited half of the amount of his offer and should, therefore, be appointed as the collection agent. One Nagendra Kumar also submitted his complaint dt. 29.1.02 to the Boards Director of Vigilance and the Managing Director, photo copies of which are marked Annexures 7 and 8 respectively, wherein it was stated that he had participated in the 3rd round of bid and made an offer of Rs. 5.01 lacs but the same has not been recorded in the bid sheet. This was followed by the impugned order dt. 1.3.02 (Annexure -9), from the Boards Managing Director to the Secretary, Market Committee, that respondent no. 6. should be appointed as the collection agent, his bid being the second highest. Hence the present writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his offer of Rs. 5.05 lacs was the second highest, but it has not been recorded in the bid sheet because of a complete misconception as to the bid sheet because of a complete misconception as to the procedure to be adopted in this behalf. The petitioner, therefore, submits that his offer being the second highest, he should be appointed as the collection agent. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 1147 (Ram and Shyam Co. V/s. State of Haryana), as well as AIR 1993 SC 1601 (Food Corpn. of India V/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries).