CHANDRAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dinesh Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey for respondent No. 5, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey for respondent No. 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 nor for respondent No. 4 (Dinesh Singh). This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 58, dated 31.5.2003 (Annexure -1), issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 (The Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Kaimoor at Bhabhua), whereby settlement of Kakrait Ghat for the period 1.6.2003 to 31.3.2006 has been made in favour of respondent No. 5 (Sunil Kumar Singh) for a consideration money of Rs. 11,29,000/- for ferry rights to the exclusion of the petitioner.

(2.) A brief background of the present dispute is essential for effective disposal of the issues raised in this writ petition. Respondent No. 3 had earlier issued a notice bearing Memo No. 706, dated 28.2.2003 (Annexure-2), notifying that auction for settlement shall be made on 21.3.2003 which was extended to 1.4.2003 by a later order bearing Memo No. 710, dated 21.3.2003, marked Annexure-2/1 of the writ petition. Respondent No. 6 was the highest bidder for Rs. 9,01,000/- which was granted in his favour for a period of three years, namely, 1,4.2003 to 31.3.2006. He deposited the requisite amount and started working out the settlement. However, much before respondent No. 6 could complete the period of three years, respondent No. 5 offered a higher amount by 25 per cent. Therefore, respondent No. 3 decided to hold a fresh bid by his order dated 19.4.2003 (Annexure-12). Respondent No. 5 deposited fifty per cent of the total amount on 18.4.2003, The same was challenged by respondent No. 6 by preferring CWJC No. 4228 of 2003 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure-5), where by a fresh auction was directed to be held.

(3.) In pursuance of the direction in the judgment, respondent No. 3 issued a fresh auction notice on the same day, i.e. 23.5.2003 (Annexure-6). The same was published in two Hindi local Dailies on 27.5.2003, photo copies of the advertisements are marked Annexures-B/1 and B/2 to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The terms and conditions of the advertisement were stipulated in the said notice dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure-6). Accordingly the auction took place on 31.5.2003. The petitioner was the highest bidder, offering a sum of Rs. 11,30,000/-, with respondent No. 5 trailing behind with his offer of Rs. 11,29,000/-. Respondent No. 3 by the impugned order granted the impugned settlement in favour of respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited fifty per cent of the bid amount forthwith. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner.