RAM MURTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is coming again and again before this Court for redressal of his grievances regarding settlement of Islampur Cattle Hat and for refund of his security deposit. In this writ petition he has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner on 14.11.1995 in Sairat Settlement Case no. 223 of 1995 as contained in Annexure -10 by which the order dated 28.7.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Misc. Sairat Case no. 2/94 -95 as contained in Annexure -9 has been confirmed refusing to release Rs. 53,157/ - deposited by the petitioner as security money for taking settlement of Islampur Cattle Hat known as Bardih Cattle Hat.

(2.) ON 16.3.1992 an advertisement was issued from the office of Anchal Office, Islampur (Nalanda) to the effect that on 23.3.1992 at 11 A.M. auction will be held of four sairats including Baridih Cattle Hat whose reserve jama was fixed at Rs. 85,000/ - and it was further mentioned that interested party taking part in auction shall have to deposit 10% of the fixed reserve jama before auction. In the said auction sale a number of persons took part as advertisement was not widely published and auction was closed in favour of one Ram Nagina Singh for Rs. 85,051/ - only. But at the instance of the local M.L.A. irregularities and illegalities were done in the auction of Baridih Cattle Hat giving no wide circular, and the said auction in favour of Ram Nagina Singh was cancelled and again a decision was taken to hold the auction of Baridih Cattle Hat having reserve jama of Rs. 1,06,314/ - and 8.6.1992 at 9 A.M. was fixed to be the date of auction at the venue i.e. the office of Sub -Divisional Officer, Hilsa. As per sale notice security money was fixed at 50% of the reserve jama to be deposited before taking part in the auction. But, according to the petitioner, when such abnormal security deposit of 50% of the reserve jama was fixed no approval was taken from the appropriate authorities as per Rule 156 of the Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. The petitioner on an information about the said notice contained in Annexure -2 deposited Rs. 53,157/ - vide Annexure

(3.) AS security money was too high and reserve jama was also fixed at a high rate none had appeared to take part in the auction till 2.30 P.M. and as such, the auction was closed in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder for Rs. 1,07,000/ -. But abruptly the petitioner was asked to deposit the balance amount within 4 P.M. According to the petitioner, there was no scope to deposit the balance amount within 4 P.M. as by that time when auction was closed bank transactions for withdrawal of money was closed. On 9.6.1992 the petitioner went to the office of Sub -divisional Officer, Hilsa, with Rs. 63,843/ - in order to deposit the balance amount but the same was refused and petitioner was asked to move before the Additional Collector, Nalanda. On 11.6.1992 the petitioner moved before the Additional Collector, Nalanda, for accepting the deposit in one lump sum as per the sale notice but no order was passed. The petitioner again moved on 17.6.92 but no order was passed on Annexure -4. Then on 20.6.1992 the petitioner moved the Collector, Nalanda, requesting him to issue direction to Anchal Adhikari, Islampur, to accept the amount but no order was passed. As the fifteen days' time as per Rule 165 of the Khas Mahal Manual was going to expire, the petitioner again moved the Collector, Nalanda, on 22.6.1992 but to no effect. Then he moved on 28.6.1992 before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, but no order was passed. It could be understood that the respondent authorities by accepting Rs. 85,051/ - from Ram Nagina has issued Parwana in his favour with a less reserve jama of Rs. 1,06,314/ - in an arbitrary manner and as such, the petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 7832 of 1992 but as Parwana had already been issued, his writ petition was dismissed on 1.10.1992. Then the petitioner moved for refund of his security amount of Rs. 53,157/ - but the respondents were not making any order on it and as such the petitioner had to move before the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar. Dy. Secretary of the Bihar Sarkar recommended for taking legal action in the matter but still no action was taken and then the petitioner moved in C.W.J.C. No. 10170 of 1992 for a direction upon the respondents to refund the security money. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction on 18.11.1994 vide Annexure -7. The direction was in the following manner : - "Having heard the parties, we have also perused the impugned order of the Additional Collector. In fact the claim of the petitioner has been rejected but no reason has been assigned. If the petitioner was defaulter, in terms of the advertisement or any other circular of the State Government, the Additional Collector should have pointed out in his order that for these reasons, he is not entitled to refund of the amount. In the background of the facts stated above, we, without expressing our opinion on the merit of the case, direct the Additional Collector, Nalanda, to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law."