IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8867 of 2009 MANOHAR YADAV, SON OF LATE HAKIM YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOBINIA P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR. 5. NILESH SINGH SON OF ARUN YADAV @ ARUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOBINIA, P.S. NAUGACHIA DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ----------- 06. 15.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also counsel for private respondent no.5, who has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner was allowed settlement of two ghats, namely, Batti Bazar Aarhat Rasalpur Makhatkiya and Sakuchangrah Gudarghat Sairat Naugachiya by the Collector, Bhagalpur pursuant to general notice dated 15.4.2009 for the year 2009-10, Annexure-2. In response to the settlement made in favour of the petitioner he deposited the bid amount but without notice to the petitioner the settlement made in his favour was stayed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur under order bearing letter No.110 dated 6.6.2009, Annexure-5 and cancelled under letter No.126 dated 20.6.2009, Annexure-6. Petitioner has impugned the two letters, Annexures-5 and 6 on the ground that even without notice to the petitioner, the aforesaid settlement was cancelled and allowed in favour of private respondent no.5 2 on the ground that respondent no.5 was ready to pay 25% above the bid amount offered by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for private respondent no.5 submitted that settlement in favour of the petitioner was made beyond the time fixed under notice, Annexure-2 as the two settlements were made after 5 p.m. on 8.5.2009. Such submission of the counsel for private respondent is being refuted by the counsel for the petitioner stating that on 8.5.2009 settlements were made not only of the aforesaid two ghats but also of Punama Pratapnagar Ghat, Naugachia in favour of private respondent no.5 and as respondent no.5 failed to offer more than the bid amount submitted by the petitioner for Batti Bazar Aarhat Rasalpur Makhatkiya and Sakuchangarah Gudarghat Sairat Naugachiya his offer for settlement of the two ghats was rejected on 8.5.2009 and he was awarded settlement of Punama Pratapnagar Ghat, Naugachia as he was the highest bidder for the said ghat. In appreciation of the aforesaid fact the learned Commissioner ought not to have cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that private respondent no.5 was ready to offer 25% above the bid amount offered by the petitioner. 4. In reply counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that Punama Pratapnagar Ghat, Naugachia was settled in his favour on 29.5.2009 and in support of such 3 contention he relied upon the receipt dated 29.5.2009 contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Such submission has been noticed only to be rejected as the receipt dated 29.5.2009 only indicates that private respondent no.5 had deposited the bid amount for Punama Pratapnagar Ghat, Naugachia on 29.5.2009 and the receipt does not indicate that bid for the said ghat was also held on 29.5.2009. Respondent no.5 has not produced any subsequent notice after issue of Annexure-2 whereunder settlements were notified on 4.5.2009 with stipulation that if for any reason the bid could not be held on 4.5.2009 the same was directed to be held on 6.5.2009 and 8.5.2009. From the counter affidavit of the State it is evident that the bid for the ghats notified under notice dated 4.7.2009 were held on 8.5.2009. In the circumstances, the contention of private respondent no.5 that he was settled Punama Pratapnagar Ghat, Naugachia on 29.5.2009 is wholly incorrect and rejected. Bid for the ghats were held on 8.5.2009 and on that date petitioner was admittedly the highest bidder for Batti Bazar Aarhat Rasalpur Makhatkiya and Sakuchangarah Gudarghat Sairat Naugachiya, as such, the settlement of the two ghats made in his favour ought not to have been cancelled by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division that too without notice to him. 4 5. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division dated 6.6.2009 and 20.6.2009, Annexures-5 and 6 are quashed with direction to take steps for fresh settlement of Batti Bazar Aarhat Rasalpur Makhatkiya ghat by conducting fresh bid after notice to the public at large as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No action, however, is required to be taken in regard to Sakuchangarah Gudarghat Sairat Naugachiya ghat where the Government has already provided a pontoon bridge and there is no need to settle the said ghat. The amount deposited by the petitioner for Sakuchangarah Gudarghat Sairat Naugachiya be refunded to him forthwith. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)