BECHAN RAM versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Bechan Ram v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 19371 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7175 (19 April 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 21.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19371 of 2006

Bechan Ram                  Vs.              State of U.P. and others.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uttam Kumar Goswami for respondent no. 6.  Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents 1 to 4. Sri Anuj Kumar appears for respondent no.5.

In an auction for fishing rights in the pond no. 450 area 0.515 (Hectares) village-Dhariha, Pargana-Pachotar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Ghazipur the petitioner was declared as a highest bidder on 17.1.2006 for Rs.5,600/- per year.  It is contended that the petitioner deposited Rs.1400/- as 1/4th  of the lease amount of 10 years. After the offer was accepted but before the sale could be confirmed, an offer was made by the respondent no. 6 to deposit Rs.6,000/- per year on 27.3.2006 on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,  Ghazipur directed the pond to be auctioned afresh.  It is contended that on 27.3.2006, a fresh auction was held.  The offer given by the respondent no. 6 was accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and that he has deposited 1/4th amount of 10 years lease.  

The record produced before the Court does not show that any fresh auction was held.   The Sub Divisional Magistrate did not invite fresh bid and that instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioner the Sub Divisional Magistrate considered the higher bid of respondent no. 6 and settled the matter.   The law relating to the settlement of rights in Government properties or award of State largesses the State authorities must act in a transparent manner and rule out arbitratiness from the proceedings. Whenever higher bid is received, before confirmation of the auction, it is appropriate that the matter

2

should be put  to re-auction so that best available price be fetched for the benefit of the State Government.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances in which no fresh auction was held allowing the previous bidder to improve his offer, the writ petition is allowed. The bids of both, the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 shall remain alive. The settlement in favour of the respondent no. 6 shall be cancelled and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate will fix fresh date for holding auction.  In case the petitioner and respondent no. 6 participate in the auction, the amount deposited by them will be taken into consideration for fresh offers.  The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall try to obtain highest bid and may not accept the bid below Rs. 10,000/- per year.  Until then, both the parties will maintain status quo on the spot. The fresh auction will be held within one month.

Dt. 19.4.2007.

BM/-.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.