KAMAL KISHORE PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A substitution petition is being filed today on behalf of a certain Manju Pandey. In the substitution petition it is stated that she is the wife and the sole heir of the petitioner Kamal Kishore Pandey who died on 2.7.1997. A prayer is accordingly made for substituting her in place of her deceased husband.

(2.) THE writ petition arises from a proceeding for the settlement of Sairat and the right to sue survives. The prayer for substitution is accordingly allowed. Let the name of the deceased petitioner be deleted from the records of this case and be substituted by that of her widowed wife. She has already appeared by filing a Vakalatnama. Heard counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE dispute in this application relates to the settlement of Paterha taxi stand under Sadar Circle in the district of Saran for the year 1997 -98 by the District Board, Saran at Chapra. For the settlement of the taxi stand an auction was held on 3.3.1997. In the auction Kamal Kishore Pandey, the original petitioner was admittedly the highest bidder making an offer of Rs. 8905/ -. In terms of the auction notice he also deposited the bid amount as is evidenced from the receipt dated 3.3.1997 (Copy at Annexure -2). It, however, appears that before any parvana was issued in his favour a certain Prabhunath Rai made some offer which was one and a half time more than the bid made by the petitioner. On the offer being made the District Engineer, Saran by his memo dated 2.4.1997 directed the Assistant Engineer of the District Board to cancel the settlement made in the petitioner's favour. It was further directed that Prabhunath Rai be asked to deposit 50% of the amount offered by him and after the deposit was made to hold a fresh auction after giving the wide publicity for the settlement of taxi stand (Copy of the letter is at Annexure -1). It was at this stage that the petitioner came to this court and obtained an order of stay by order dated 17.4.1997. When this case was taken up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the settlement made in the petitioner's favour was cancelled but Prabhunath Rai did not make any deposit as directed by the District Engineer in his letter dated 2.4.1997 and consequently no steps were taken for holding a fresh auction for the settlement of the taxi stand.