ATWA TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed in W.P.C No. 1791/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents -appellants and quashed the advertisement notice issued by the respondent -Market Board inviting open bid auction for settlement of Bero Haat/Bajar and further quashed the settlement made in favour of the respondents -appellants.

(2.) THE case of the appellants -respondents, inter alia, was that their lands are being used for holding Bero Haat/Bajar by the Market Board. They claimed themselves to be the displaced persons and requested the Market Board to make settlement in their favour for collection of market fee of the said Haat/Bajar. It is stated that a group of persons were allowed to collect market fee for the financial years 2004 -05 and the said period was extended up to 2005 -06. The said persons became defaulters in payment of minimum guarantee amount to the Board as a result of which those 15 persons represented to the Secretary, Market Committee of the Market Board stating that they are not able to deposit the minimum guarantee of the market fee and they are not in a position to continue with the settlement for the remaining period. The said representation was considered by the Market Board and the settlement which was made with them, was cancelled. In the meantime, the claim of the writ petitioners that they were displaced persons, was inquired into and recommendation was made for settlement of Bero Haat/Bajar in their favour. The Haat was alleged to have been settled in favour of the writ petitioners. Their further case was that they were surprised to see the notice of advertisement issued by the Market Board for settlement of Bero Haat/Bajar by open bid. Petitioners' case was that in terms of settlement they were entitled for extension of period according to the policy decision taken by the Board. Pursuant to the advertisement 11 persons were appointed for the purpose of collecting market fee which has also been challenged by the writ petitioners.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge formulated the following two points for consideration: