High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramesh Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 64296 of 2006  RD-AH 20149 (28 November 2006)
Hon. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the first prayer. The remaining prayers are for issuing directions to the respondents to complete the proceedings and execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner and not to issue a fresh notification for holding the auction.
The statutory provisions involved in this case are Sections 96 and 97 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Section 96 of the Act provides that any contract in favour of a private person requires to be approved by the Municipality by passing a resolution, even in a case of Nagar Panchayat if the amount involved is more than Rs.15,000/-. Section 97 deals with the procedure and mode of execution of the contract in writing.
In the instant case there is no pleading as who conducted the auction. It has merely been stated that the Administrator was working. Till today no agreement has been executed in favour of the petitioner and nor there is any resolution passed in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board as required under Section 96(1) of the Act.
We are, therefore, no inclined to entertain the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in case the petitioner moves an application before the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Chit Bara Gaon, Ballia for refund of the amount already deposited by him, the same shall be refunded in accordance with law expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.