Gram Panchayat Sangoha Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - it is urged, on the basis of annexure p-3, that the entire land of the erstwhile one village and now two village, is exactly of the same quality and,thus, there is no question of the respondent- gram panchayat getting better quality land and petitioner gram panchayat inferior one.v.k. bali, j.1. gram panchayat - sangoha in the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution seeks issuance of a writ of certiorsri to quash order, annexure p-4, dated 19.9.2002 and the mutation, which came to be sanctioned on the basis of the said order. the short order, annexure p-4, that has been impugned by the petitioner-gram panchayat in the present writ petition, reads thus:'on the above subject, gram panchayat sangohi has separated from gram panchayat sangoha in the year 1998. in march 1990, an order was passed under section 111 of punjab gram panchayat regulation, 1952 to partition the total moveable and immovable property of gram panchayat sangoha in equal shares. but since jungle was standing in gau charand of gram panchayat sangoha and some land was kept reserved for brick kiln. therefore,you partition the total land of gau charand of the gram panchayat, sangoha in two equal shares, in the manner that the numbers of gau charand land are given to the village in whose side or near whose area the same is adjoining. treat this as most urgent.'2. in so far as creation of two gram panchayat by way of bifurcation and partitioning the land between the two village-panchayats the land between the two villagepanchayats is concerned, the same is no more in dispute as a civil writ petition challenging the same came to be dismissed way back on 10.7.1991 (annexure r-4/1). the only contention, thus, raised in this writ petition is that, even though, by a communication, annexure p-4, the tehsildar, kamal was to partition the land, the patwari has exercised the said power and partitioned the land in such a manner that more useful/fer- tile land has gone to the respondent-gram panchayat, thus, causing immense loss to the petitioner-gram panchayat.4. this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been hotly contested by learned counsel representing the respondent-gram panchayat, sangohi, the other gram panchayat which was carved out from the petitioner-gram panchayat. it is urged, on the basis of annexure p-3, that the entire land of the erstwhile one village and now two village, is exactly of the same quality and,thus, there is no question of the respondent- gram panchayat getting better quality land and petitioner gram panchayat inferior one.5. after hearing learned counsel representing the parties and gong through the re- cord, we are of the firm view that this court need not determine the question,which has been posed in the writ petition, that the petitioner-gram panchayat has not been given the same quality of land or that it has been given inferior quality of land. in the interest of justice, we direct the tehsildar, kamal to examine this issue and in case, it is found that the petitioner-gram panchayat was given the land of less value or inferior quality, then to re-partition the land so that both the gram panchayats may get the same quality of land. let this exercise be done within the period of three months from the date the parties appear before the tehsildar, karnal. the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the tehsildar, karnal on 16.2.2004.6. the tehsildar, karnal will also determine as to whether the brick kiln can also be partitioned and if not, which gram panchayat should retain it and which gram panchayat should get compensation for the same from the other gram panchayat.the petition stands disposed of.