MOJIBUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the right of the Special Officer cum Administrator, Kisanganj Agriculture Produce Market Committee to settle certain Hat consequent to the repeal of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 by the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. It is submitted that after the Market Act was repealed, the respondent had no jurisdiction to bid settlement of the Hat and Bazar and, that too, in respect of realisation of ground rent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The private respondent has appeared and filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit and a preliminary objection has been raised by the private respondent.

(2.) PARTIES have been heard and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to the said notice petitioner applied for participating in the bid. He deposited the earnest money much before the bidding. On the day of bidding, he turned out to be the highest bidder having bid six lacs rupees as the settlement amount in respect of Khangrahat Avam Gudrihat. He had already deposited Rs. 50,690.00 as earnest money. He was then asked to deposit three lacs rupees which is half of the bid amount immediately. He sought for time. He was granted time. He failed to deposit within the time. He was told that he would forfeit his earnest money on failure to deposit. Settlement was then made with the second person and the earnest, money forfeited. All this happened on that day itself and these facts are supported by order -sheets and documents signed by the petitioner himself. Petitioner asserts that these signatures and writings were taken under coercion. This Court is not persuaded to accept the same. Thus the earnest money having been forfeited and the settlement having been made in favour of Respondent No. 5, the petitioner has challenged the very notice saying that it is without jurisdiction on the ground that the estate did not belong to the Market Committee. His submission was that it was not the asset of the erstwhile Market Committee and as such could not have vested in the Special Officer -cum -Administrator, who is the caretaker, as per the repealing Act. If that be so then the very auction as called for was illegal and without jurisdiction. If that be so then his earnest money has to be refunded and cannot be forfeited. In the alternative it is submitted that he was ready and willing to deposit the said amount though belatedly on the same day but was not accepted by the authority and as such settlement ought to be made in his favour setting aside the settlement made in favour of Respondent No. 5.