Sushil Kumar Karan Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- .....other two contenders was trying to cause revenue loss to the state by obstruction in the settlement of those ghats on their proper valuation. in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, this court finds it difficult to hold that the view taken by the district magistrate is the only correct view. if the view taken by the district magistrate was accepted as the only correct view, this court, perhaps, might not have interfered within this matter. but in the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, the stand of the district magistrate does not appear to this court to be infallible. the view taken by the district magistrate may be a possible view but the other view, espoused by the petitioner, also does not appear to be wholly without substance. in these facts and circumstances, this court should have wished for a more firm and solid foundation for resting the decision for forfeiture of the security deposit. but unfortunately, there is no such stipulation in the advertisement that in case a participant fails to make a bid at par with the reserve jama, the security deposit made by him will be forfeited. there is no such provision in the relevant rules either. in the absence of.....

Judgment:

Aftab Alam, J.

1. This writ petition arises from a controversy relating to the settlement of the sandghats of river Batane (up to village Jamhore, including Jevanbigha, Munshibigha and Dhawa Dhanav) falling in the district of Aurangabad. The sand ghats in question, remain unsettled and the petitioner has come to this Court seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to refund the sum of Rs. 5,63,615/- deposited by him as security money for taking part in the bid.

2. An advertisement was issued on 13-12-2000 for settlement of a large number of sand ghats for a period of one year commencing from 1-1-2001. The sand ghats, forming the subject-matter of this writ petition, were at serial No. 7 in the advertisement and the reserve jama for those sand ghats was shown as Rs. 56,36,150/-. The advertisement stipulated that persons desirous of taking part in the bid for the settlement of the ghats should deposit a sum forming 10% of the reserve jama. The bid was to take place on 20-12-2000.

3. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,63,615/- as security money and so did two other persons. On 20-12-2000 the three would be bidders, including the petitioner, made a request for postponement of the bid. On their request, the bid was fixed on 21-12-2000 and on that date it was again postponed to 22-12-2000. On that date, the three would be bidders finally, intimated the District Magistrate that none of them was willing to offer more than 35 lacs for the settlement of the sand ghats in question.

4. The sum offered by them was far below the reserve jama fixed for the sand ghats.

5. In this regard, it may be stated that for the previous year, the settlement of the sand ghats in question was made in favour of a firm, namely. Bhaskar Electric Company of Morabadi, Ranchi for a sum of Rs. 49,01,000/-. The reserve jama for the current year was fixed by increasing the settlement amount for the previous by 15%, as per rules.

6. According to the petitioner and the other two contenders the settlee for the previous year (who had taken settlement for Rs. 49,01,000/-) had also incurred a loss and, therefore, the reserve jama fixed for this year was quite unreasonable, arbitrary, exaggerated and fanciful.

7. The District Magistrate, on the other hand came to the inference that the petitioner and the other two persons were in collusion with each other and forming a sort of consortium, had jointly fixed the value of the sand ghats at Rs. 35 lacs and the (under) valuation made by them was calculated to cause loss of revenue to the State, He, accordingly, declined to accede to their request for refunding the security money.

8. It is thus, to be seen that according to the petitioner, the reserve jama for the sand ghats in question, as fixed for the current year was quite unreasonable, exaggerated and fanciful. On the other hand, the District Magistrate maintains that the reserve jama was fixed properly but the petitioner in league with the other two contenders was trying to cause revenue loss to the State by obstruction in the settlement of those ghats on their proper valuation. In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the view taken by the District Magistrate is the only correct view. If the view taken by the District Magistrate was accepted as the only correct view, this Court, perhaps, might not have interfered within this matter. But in the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, the stand of the District Magistrate does not appear to this Court to be infallible. The view taken by the District Magistrate may be a possible view but the other view, espoused by the petitioner, also does not appear to be wholly without substance. In these facts and circumstances, this Court should have wished for a more firm and solid foundation for resting the decision for forfeiture of the security deposit. But unfortunately, there is no such stipulation in the advertisement that in case a participant fails to make a bid at par with the reserve jama, the security deposit made by him will be forfeited. There is no such provision in the relevant rules either. In the absence of any statutory provision or a clause in the advertisement, the decision of the District Magistrate plainly appears to be without any sanction in law. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the District Magistrate is directed to refund the security deposit made by the petitioner without delay.

9. It will be, however, open to the District Magistrate to make fresh advertisement for the settlement of the ghats in question and in case, he receives offers higher than the offer made by the petitioner, it will also be open to him to debar the petitioner from participating in the bid in pursuance of the subsequent advertisement.