VISHNU DEO RAI Vs. STATE OI BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shivaji Pandey for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No. IV. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the contract for a period of one year for toll coiiection of Mahatma Gandhi Setu span ning river Ganga and connecting the townships of Patna and Hajipur.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 5 (Executive Engineer, National Highway, Gulzarbag Division, Gulzarbag, Patna) issued an advertisement which appeared in the local dailies on 6.8.2004 (Annexure -1), inviting tenders for settlement of toll collection of the Setu for a period of one year. Clause 9 of the advertisement reads as follows:

(3.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It must first of all be noted that Clause -9 of the advertisement does not specify and does not bind down the parties to a particular period. It only covers a period of one year from the date of issuance of the work order. Therefore, the respondent authorities are not right in their submission that it should be readvertised because one year has lapsed since the auction took place. The inaction and delay is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities. Another facet of the same matter is that if the respondent authorities had taken the decision in time, then the petitioner would have started getting returns of its investment much earlier. There would be no compensation to him in any manner if the work is now allotted to him.