GH MASSI Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises in the following circumstances: - Respondent No. 1 is the Block Development Officer, Marh Block, Jammu and Respondent No. 3 is the Assistant Commissioner Agricultural Production, Jammu. It appears that every year an auction is held for the sale of bones of dead cattle within the territorial limits of 20 Panchayat Halqas of Marh Block. The highest bid received for the year 1972 -73 was Rs. 10070/ -. In the auction for the year 1973 -74 the petitioners were the highest bidders who offered a sum of Rs. 3020/ -. This bid was accepted by the Block Development Officer who conducted the auction on behalf of the Government, vide his order dated 21 -4 -1973, Annexure A to the petition. The Block Development Officer consequently allotted the contract for the collection of bones of the dead animals within the aforesaid territorial limits in favour of the petitioners. The amount of Rs, 3020/ - being the total auction money was also deposited by the petitioners and they were permitted to lift the bones up to 15 -4 -1974. Long after the allotment of the contract by means of the 1st respondents order dated 21 -4 -1973, he (the first respondent) vide his order dated 18 -5 -1973 being Annexure C to the petition informed the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner Agricultural Production, Jammu vide his order dated 28 -4 -1973 has not approved the allotment of the contract in favour of the petitioners therefore, the same may be treated as cancelled. A fresh auction notice was thereafter issued by the second respondent fixing 24 -5 -1973 as the date of auction. The petition was filed on 22 -5 -1973 claiming an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from holding a fresh auction and from cancelling their contract.

(2.) AT the time of the admission of the petition I issued an order that the auction to be conducted on 24 -5 -1973 be stayed till the disposal of the petition. The respondents were directed to file their objections. The same have been filed.

(3.) THE respondents, have stated in their objections that the auction money of Rs. 3020/ - offered by the petitioners in the open auction conducted by the first respondent was ridiculously inadequate and because of this reason the third respondent did not approve the allotment of the contract in favour of the petitioners by the first respondent. The third respondent accordingly directed the holding of a fresh auction. Certain extracts of the conditions of auction have also been placed on the record, which go to show that the petitioners had to execute a formal deed of agreement within two days from the date of the allotment and that in case the amount of the bid offered was not reasonable a fresh auction could be held. It has further been pleaded in the written objections that there was no valid contract between the parties so as to conform to the provision of section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and, therefore, no rights had accrued to the petitioners on the basis of such a contract.