ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. NAGAR PARISHAD, SIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER initially filed the writ application for quashing of the order/Parwana for settlement made for the year 2007 -2008 dated 28.3.2007 contained in Annexure -6. The Parwana was for realization of service fee from all the commercial vehicles, temporary Gumtis and Thelas from the property of the respondent -Nagar Parishad, Siwan. The primary reason for seeking quashing of this Parwana is on the ground that 15.8.2005 the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of the same kind by virtue of an order passed in his favour which would be evident from perusal of Annexure -1. Subsequently on a representation made by the petitioner on completion of the earlier period of settlement a so -called decision was taken by the Zila Parishad to extend the settlement by another three years on same terms. This according to the petitioner is his substantive right to challenge the new arrangement made through order contained in Annexure -6.

(2.) PETITIONER has brought certain materials to show that some kind of decision for extending the initial settlement was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005 was extended by another three years. But this decision only remained on paper and no communication was ever made with the petitioner conferring any right in him. In other words mere decision on file without communication of the same to the petitioner did not create a right of settlement for three years based on the initial settlement of one year. Keeping the fact in mind and also the issue that any Bandobasti or settlement ought to be made from year to year, by a open bid, so that the meager resources of Nagar Parishad could be augmented to meet the financial crunch which includes payment of salary of permanent employees whose non -payment has led to many litigations before the High Court, the Nagar Parishad did no wrong in issuing public notice in question for fresh settlement.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY on 15.4.2008 the Court was informed that bidding, in fact, had taken place on 26th March, 2008 instead of 28th March, 2008 as informed by Learned Counsel for the respondent. Not only the Court but even the petitioner felt that there was a foul play in the auction held in this regard. The Court decided to issue a suo motu contempt against respondent no. 4 which was registered as MJC No. 1121 of 2008. This contempt application was separately heard. By order dated 13.8.2008 the contempt proceeding was dropped on the Court being satisfied that there was no intent or purpose to mislead the Court about the date of auction. Nothing more need to be recorded on that issue in this part of the order.