SAHEB KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 8 and the State.

(2.) Dispute relates to the settlement of Maulana Mazharul Haque Bus Stand, Siwan, which is property of Siwan Municipality. Petitioner's grievance is that this bus stand has been settled with respondent No. 8 by respondents 5, 6 and 7 vide their order, dated 16.3.2005, without giving any public notice and without affording opportunity of participating in the bid to the interested person. It has also been alleged that on the telephonic direction of the District Magistrate, Siwan, in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, settlement has been made in favour of respondent No. 8.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that he is interested in taking the settlement of bus stand for the year 2005-2006 as the settlement for the year 2004-2005 was made in his favour. For 2005-2006, Settlement, Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Siwan, had issued public notice, dated 11.3.2005, for auction of Maulana Mazharul Haque Bus Stand, Siwan. Three dates of auction were fixed, i.e., 16.3.2005, 19.3.2005 and 20.3.2005. It was made clear in the notice that if auction did not take place on 16.3.2005 then it would take place on 19.3.2005 and in case it did not take place on 19.3.2005 then auction will be held on 21.3.2005. The Nagar Parishad in its meeting, dated 16.3.2005, changed the date of auction. The resolution was taken that auction will take place on 21.3.2005, in case it did not take place on 21.3.2005 then on 23.3.2005. In any case if it will not take place on 23.3.2005 then it will be held on 28.3.2005. Reserve price for settlement was fixed at Rs. 30,25,000/-. A notice of this resolution was issued on 17.3.2005. The District Magistrate, Siwan, directed the Executive Officer to issue a public notice on 15.3.2005 which was not pasted at all conspicuous places and also not published in any of the local newspaper. Interested person like petitioner and Ors. who intended to participate in the auction had no knowledge about the change in the auction date, in an arbitrary and illegal manner without proper public notice, settlement was made in favour of respondent No. 8 for the year 2005-2006. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the settlement was made in violation of the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 5013 of 2004, as such, the order of settlement is illegal and it must be quashed.