SRI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER by way of present writ application is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.4.2007 by virtue of which the earlier settlement of a bus stand made for the year 2007 -08 in favour of the petitioner by Zila Parishad, Saran at Chapra has been cancelled. Thereafter a fresh advertisement has also been issued in this regard where the private respondent turned out to be successful bidder. The contention of the petitioner fs that in terms of an advertisement issued by the D.D.C. -cum - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Saran settlement of Sarha Dhala Bus Stand for the year 2007. -08 was ordered by open bid. Petitroner alongwith the private respondent no. 6, namely, Brij Kishore Singh participated in the said auction. Petitioner turned out to be the successful bidder and a Parwana was also issued in his favour. After the private respondent lost out in the bid, he made a complaint to the Divisional Commissioner alleging that the proper procedure had not been followed in the auction. Two grounds had been stated therein for challenge to the settlement one is that the D.D.C. who was the competent person did not supervise the auction and the second that even though private respondent was the highest bidder but he was shooed away from the campus. It seems due to the intervention of the Commissioner as well as a communication from the Regional Transport Authority the earlier settlement made in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled. Petitioner has brought to my notice a report which was sought by the Commissioner in the matter which is annexed as Annexure -8. The D.D.C. had categorically reported on the two points which were raised in the complaint petition of the private respondent. A reading of the report would show that no legal infirmity was committed while the auction was made or held with regard to the settlement of the bus stand in question This Court is of the opinion that the objections which were raised and based on which the Divisional Commissioner responded does not seem to be a justified reason for interference in matters of such contract.

(3.) A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 has been filed. The private respondent has also appeared in the matter. The private respondent has tried to justify the subsequent settlement and has submitted in support of the decision which had been taken by the respondent authorities in resettling the said bus stand in his favour.