KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu by which settlement of Sairat done in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled without hearing the petitioner and further for a direction to the respondents to settle the Sairat No. 15/2004 - 05 in favour of the petitioner for which the entire process has been completed. A further prayer has been made for initiation of a proceeding under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) PETITIONER 'scase is that respondent No. 3, the Circle Officer, Hussainabad issued a general notice dated 27.5.2004 for settlement of Sairat No. 15/2004 -05 for construction of temporary road on Koel River, Mohammadganj for the period 2004 -05 and the date of auction was fixed on 12.6.2004. Since the price offered by the participants was low, notice was published and the date was fixed for auction on 31.7.2004. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that on 31.7.2004 auction was held in which five persons, namely, the petitioner, respondent No. 4, respondent No. 5, Shri Vijay Singh and Shri Law Kumar Singh participated. Shri Law Kumar Singh was the highest bidder who quoted Rs. 91,500.00 and Rs. 3,50,000.00 . The second highest bidder was the petitioner who quoted Rs. 91,100.00 and Rs. 1,00,600.00 whereas respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 87,000.00 Rs. 96,000.00 and respondent No. 5 quoted Rs. 90,000.00 and Rs. 1,00000.00 . The highest bidder namely, Shri Law Kumar Singh refused to take the work. The petitioner being the second highest bidder, approached the Circle Officer for allotment of work to him. The respondents, therefore requested the petitioner to take settlement of the Sairat. In the meantime respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made objection and requested for cancellation of settlement. When the Sub -Divisional Officer, Hussainabad, after holding enquiry submitted a report before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the allegations made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are without any basis then respondent Nos. 4 and 5, suppressing all the facts, moved this Court by filling W.P.C. No. 5991/2004 stating that they were the second and third highest bidders. They made false statements in the said writ application that in the auction respondent No. 4 gave his auction of Rs. 1,25,000.00 . On the basis of the statement made in the writ petition this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the grievance of the petitioners (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and take decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner also. By memo No. 1892 dated 31.4.2004 the Deputy Commissioner called upon the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 fixing 3.1.200.5 as the date of hearing. Petitioner 'scase is that the said letter was received by him only on 4.1.2005 and the Deputy Commissioner, although handed over charge to the incumbent Deputy Commissioner on 4.1.2005, passed the impugned order cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 made allegation of offering Rs. 1,25,000.00 as the bid amount.

(3.) AGAIN the matter was placed on 21.3.2005 but respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not appear. This Court, therefore, directed issuance of fresh notices upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and further directed the State Counsel to produce the entire record of Settlement case along with dispatch register on the next date. It was only thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Circle Officer filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 5991/2004 the Deputy Commissioner fixed 3.1.2005 as the date of hearing but the petitioner did not appear. The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, passed order for re -auction of the Sairat. It is further stated that fresh auction was held on 29.1.2005 and all concerned including the petitioner were given notice.