PAWAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four writ petitions had been heard analogous as the grievances are of similar nature and respondents are the same and the lawyer for all the petitioners are the same.

(2.) SOME hats from where market tolls are to be collected by the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Bihariganj in the district of Madhepura were advertised for settlement vide Annexure -1. It was mentioned that open bid was to be made on 20.2.2002 and failure of which the same may be done on 25.2.2002, 28.2.2002, 19.3.2002 and 26.3.2002. Time and place of open bid was also mentioned. The reserved amount was also mentioned together with deposit of 10% as earnest money of the different Bazars. The petitioners were the tenderers of four such Bazars. Petitioner No. 1 submitted tender for Alamnagur Bazar but the grievance is that the open bid was not held on the notified days upto 3 p.m. on 26.3.2002 and the petitioners were not in a position to participate in the open bid and the selection process was made behind the back of the petitioners having lost its transparency. Pawan Kumar Singh petitioner of CWJC No. 4642 of 2002 has further reiterated that after the bid was being concluded in favour of Private respondent for Rs. 3.11 lacs he offered 5 lacs but still then his case was not considered and then Vigilance Department of the Marketing Board had stopped such settlement and asked the Marketing Board to collect tolls until further orders. That was done only in repect of Alam Nagar Bazar and not in respect of other hats where the money involved for settlement were not so high.

(3.) BUT the case of CWJC No. 4844 of 2002 is a bit different. Here it appears that the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh was very much present at the time of bidding in the late hours of the day on 26.3.2002 and he could not succeed and the private respondent of that writ petition being found to be highest bidder was settled with the Bazar in question in that writ petition. He had deposited the bid money but the same could be certified only on 30.3.2002 and practically on these grounds alone it has been challenged that the highest bidder has no money in his hand and, as such, time was alldwed to the private respondent and he deposited the bid money after two days. The same has been protested from the side of Marketing Committee by stating that bid money was deposited on the same dates with the Committee but the same could not be deposited with the Treasury within the next two days because of holidays and the certificate had been issued on 30.3.2002. The plea of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh that he was ready to give higher than the bid money accepted is of no avail when he became disgruntled one at the time of open bid itself. In that way although open bid was made in the late hours of the day but it does not appear that the eligible bidder including the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh was not given opportunity as in the other three cases. In that way this writ petition is dismissed and the order directing the Marketing Committee to collect tolls themselves through their own agency is hereby withdrawn in respect of this case giving opportunity to the private respondent if he is still agreeable to collect tolls on the basis of selection being made in his favour but in future in respect of this Bazar also the Marketing Committee shall follow the direction of this court as already mentioned above in the case of Suday Kumar in making settlement of Bazar regarding collection of tolls. Thus, as per discussion above the three writ petitions, namely, CWJC Nos. 4642/2002, 4692/2002 and 4691/2002 are disposed of with the direction as given above but CWJC No. 4844 of 2002 is hereby dismissed and the direction given interimely regarding collection of Bazar tolls by the Marketing Committee is hereby withdrawn.