IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5487 of 2009 MANKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH s/o Gopal Prasad, resident of village Singhpur, P.S. Haveli, Kharagpur, District-Munger. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Director, Panchayat Raj, Bihar,Patna. 2. Collector, Munger. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner -cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,Munger. 4. Zila Parishad through its Chief ExecutiveOfficer,Munger. 5. Md Enamul Haque s/o Hanif, resident of village- West Azimganj, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur,District- Munger. ----------- 8 20.11.2009 How State revenue is squandered is exemplified by this case. At Kharagpur there is a public bus stand under the control of Munger Zila Parishad. In 2008, the Zila Parishad decided to settle the management thereof for the first time through private participation. Private respondent no.5 was settled for the financial year 2008-09 the said bus stand for an amount of Rs. 5,05,500/-.Thus, the settlement had to come to an end on 31st March, 2009. In the settlement there was a renewal clause, which provided that the settlement could be renewed for another financial year if the settlee exercises his option for renewal by December, 2008 at a settlement price of 5% above the previous year settlement. In case the settlee offered such an intention then he was required to deposit the next year settlement amount by December, 2008. Time of deposit is disputed. As per private respondent no.5, the agreement that was entered into is appended as Annexure –A/5 to the counter affidavit of respondent no.5. The intention to seek renewal had to be made in December and 50% of the enhanced settlement to be deposited by 2 January but in his supplementary counter affidavit he has annexed the rules relating to such settlement, as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit. There it was clearly provided that if he was intrested in seeking settlement for the next year at an enhancement of 5% , he had to make offer along with 50% of enhanced payment within the December itself and thereafter before parwana is issued for the next year, he had to deposit the balance. It is not in dispute that respondent no.5 made an application for extension of the settlement in December, 2008. He deposited 50% of the enhanced settlement fee , which was only 5% enhancement in January. It appears that one Mani Lal Yadav approached the Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad and said that he was ready to deposit 10% above the previous settlement amount i.e. 5% more than what was respondent no.5 offered and as such settlement should be made with him. It seems that Executive Officer asked him to deposit the money but he failed to deposit the money.Then it is not in dispute that thereafter in March itself i.e. before the beginning of financial year, petitioner approached the Executive Officer and offered 12% above the previous year’s settlement amount. This offer was not considered at all and the settlement with respondent no.5 at 5% above the previous year was ordered to be made. Thus, the settlement with respondent no.5 was made for the financial year 2009-2010 at 5% above the previous year settlement. This has brought the petitioner to this Court . Before entertaining the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to establish his bonafide and deposit in this Court the entire amount as offered by him i.e. 12% above the original settlement 3 and 7 ½ % above what respondent no.5 had deposited. The amount being Rs. 5,62,000/- was then deposited in this Court by bank draft to establish petitioner’s bonafide. This Court then intended to direct the Zila Parishad to carry out bidding. Respondent no.5 appealed by filing L.P.A being L.P.A. No. 1055 of 2009. In L.P.A. the order of this Court directing auction settlement by way of an interim measure was set aside stating that L.P.A.Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the contentions the either side and the writ petition should be decided on its own merit. The draft, as submitted by the petitioner was then returned to the petitioner .We are now towards end of November, 2009. The settlement is to end on 31st March, 2010.What this Court would like to point out that if the writ petitioner was permitted the settlement, then the Zila Parishad would have lost at least Rs. 31,225/- by its own wrong decision not to go for re-auction. and respondent no.5 has been given an unfair advantage. This Court while making this observation, respondent no.5 volunteers to make up this loss of this period. In my view, that is the right spirit to establish the bonafide but that again establishes wrong decision by the Zila Parishad Having considered the matter , this Court holds that as the settlement has substantially outlived its period , on respondent no.5 depositing additional amount of Rs. 31,225/- within four weeks from today, the settlement would not be interfered with and would carry out for the full term upto 31st March, 2010. For the financial year 2010 onwards, Zila Parishad would make a settlement after public auction and due notice in respect thereof so that the best may 4 come for public good.Both petitioner and respondent no.5 would be competent to compete therein. Before parting I may refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company –v- State of Haryana and others since reported in (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 267 wherein under similar circumstances the Apex Court stepped in and it found that as against original settlement of Rs. 3,87,000/- when bids were taken in Court, the settlement reached Rs. 25 lakhs. That shows that surely there was something wrong which had been done like in the present case. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)