SHYAM BABU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to the settlement of certain market(s) called Beldari Chak Pabheri More at Masaurhi in the district of Patna for collection of market fees for the year, 2002 -03. The settlement was made in favour of respondent no. 6 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - on an offer made by him directly to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board, Patna. When the petitioner came to learn about the settlement made in favour of respondent no. 6 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - he made a representation offering Rs. 10,50,000/ -, to be paid in one Instalment, for the settlement of the the Market(s) for the period in question. Failing to get any response to his offer, the petitioner has come to this Court in this writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case are simple and without controversy. On 30.3.2002 the Subdivisional Officer -cum -Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee Masaurhi wrote a letter (Annexure 1) to the Managing Director of the Marketing Board mooting the proposal for making the settlement of the markets by public auction. The Regional Director, Agriculture Marketing by his letter, dated 4.7.2002 addressed to the Marketing Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Masaurhi fixed the reserve jama for the markets as Rs. 5 lacs. On 16.7.2002 the Agriculture Secretary of the Market Committee wrote to the Managing Director seeking his permission for holding auction for settlement of the markets. In reply, the Market Secretary received a letter, dated 19.7.2002 from the Managing Director of the Board directing to make settlement of the markets in favour of respondent no. 6 in case he deposited the settlement amount of Rs. 5,50,000/ - as offered by him, in one instalment. On the following day (20.7.2002) the Market Secretary issued a letter stating that the settlement of the markets, for collection of market fees was made in favour of respondent no. 6 and Parwana was also issued in his favour. (Incidently, it may be noted that the Managing Director of the Board retired from service on 31.8.2002).

(3.) ON 2.8.2002 this Court while directing the respondents to file counter affidavits, passed an interim order that "the toll should be collected by the Market Committee itself."