ARVIND CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition relates to settlement of Munger Rajghat Ferry for the years 1997 to 1999. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders as contained in Annexures 6 and 9. By Annexure 6 the Commissioner, Munger Division directed the ferry to be settled with the second highest bidder, i.e. respondent No. 3 Kumar Arun Chandra Singh, on default of the highest bidder, i.e. the petitioner Kumar Arvind Chand Singh, to deposit the bid amount. By Annexure 9 the Commissioner refused to stay his order. The facts so far as relevant to the dispute may briefly be stated as follows:

(2.) On December 2, 1996 an auction notice was published for auction of Munger Rajghat Ferry. The scheduled date of auction was December 16, 1996. As the settlement was subject to the applicants' making available vessels of the required specification, the date of auction was postponed to December 30, 1996. It is said that the verification was made on December 27, 1996 and report was submitted on the next day. On December 30, 1996 the auction was held. The petitioner bid the highest amount of Rs. 7,89,000/- per year. The bid of the petitioners was accepted and he was directed to deposit the amount in one lump within 10 days, i.e. by January 9, 1997, failing which the ferry was to be settled with the second highest bidder. It may be stated here that respondent No. 3 had made the second highest bid of Rs. 7,88,000/-.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 challenged . the validity of the auction before the Divisional Commissioner by way of a petition under Section 7 (1) of the Ferries Act, which was registered as Case No. 3 of 1997. The petitioner appeared and objected to the maintainability of the petition. The Commissioner by his order dated January 24, 1997 overruled the objection; he nevertheless dismissed the petition and while rejecting the prayer of respondent No. 3 to settle the ferry with him, gave another chance to the petitioner herein to deposit the bid amount within ten days. It may be stated here that in the meantime during pendency of the case before the Commissioner, on January 9, 1997 the petitioner had filed petitions before the Collector seeking his order for deposit of the bid amount after making some adjustment. On February 3, 1997, when the extended period allowed by the Commissioner was to expire, the Additional Collector, Munger allowed ur- ther time upto February 10, 1997 for depositing the balance amount and necessary papers. There is dispute as to the circumstances and the competence of the Additional Collector to extend the time for making the deposit. I shall advert to the facts in this regard later in this judgment.