THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7379 AND 7639 OF 2010 11.06.2010 Between: B.Ramesh Goud ….Petitioner AND The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7379 AND 7639 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Konda Mallepalli Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda District, issued an auction notice dated 06.03.2010 proposing to auction right to collect market fees in weekly cattle market held in the Gram Panchayat. Ramesh Goud (petitioner herein) and four others submitted their bids in the auction duly paying Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) each by way of demand draft as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). Condition 6 of Auction Conditions requires successful bidder to deposit fifty per cent of bid amount before 4.00 p.m., on 26.03.2010 when the auction was held. Ramesh Goud gave a bid for Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only) whereas Mekala Srinivas gave bid for Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs fifty thousand only). As the highest bidder when his bid was not accepted and cattle market was not allotted, Ramesh Goud filed W.P.No.7379 of 2010 seeking a direction to Gram Panchayat to allot cattle market contract to him. The writ petition was filed on 31.03.2010 and this Court on 01.04.2010 passed the following order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a Xerox copy of the unanimous resolution, dated 31.03.2010, passed by Kondamallepalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, awarding the right to collect the market fees in weekly cattle shandee in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner’s apprehension is that the Gram Panchayat is withholding the appointment order influenced by other extraneous considerations. In view of the same, there shall be interim order as prayed for. Even though the Gram Panchayat by unanimous resolution accepted the bid of the petitioner, the contract was not executed and he was not permitted to collect market fee. Therefore, he filed yet another W.P.No.7639 of 2010* seeking a direction to Gram Panchayat to implement resolution dated 31.03.2010. At this stage, Mekala Srinivas (hereafter sixth respondent) filed application to come on record and he has been impleaded in both the writ petitions. There is no dispute that the bid of petitioner for Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only) was unanimously accepted by Gram Panchayat on 31.03.2010. The resolution further records that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and obtained receipt from Gram Panchayat office. Relying on condition 6, sixth respondent, however, contends that fifty per cent of the bid amount was not paid before 4.00 p.m., on 26.03.2010 and that the amount was paid by way of adjustment of EMD amount of another bidder by name Jeedikal. Therefore, according to counsel for sixth respondent, there is violation of terms and conditions of auction notice, rendering resolution of Gram Panchayat allotting the cattle market to petitioner illegal, invalid and arbitrary. He placed reliance on Association of Registration Plates v Union of India[1] in support of the contention that in matters of contracts, a writ petition would not lie especially when a person claiming to be the highest bidder does not fulfil the eligibility criteria or does not comply with conditions of auction. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s bid is highest. Therefore, the only point which requires consideration is whether there is violation of condition 6 by petitioner allegedly in not paying fifty per cent of the bid amount before 4.00 p.m., on the date of auction on 26.03.2010. Be it noted, there is no serious dispute that the amount was indeed paid on that day by way of adjustment of EMD amount paid by another auction participant one Jeedikal. There is also no dispute that the amount of fifty per cent payable by highest bidder includes EMD amount and that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on the date of auction. Relying on the Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules Relating to Receipts and Expenditure of Gram Panchayat issued vide G.O.Ms.No.496, Panchayat Raj, dated 11.06.1966. Counsel for petitioner submits that condition 6 is only directory and it is not mandatory. According to her, if condition 6 is construed as mandatory requiring the highest bidder to deposit fifty per cent of the bid amount before 4.00 p.m., it would be the contrary to Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules. This Court finds force in the submission. The said Rule 6(3)(b) reads as under. 6. Fees from markets, cart-stands, landing or halting places, slaughter houses, fisheries and ferries:- (3) The preliminary notice shall set forth the following conditions and terms, subject to which the lease will be granted, namely:- (b) If the period of lease does not exceed one year- (i) the lessee shall, within one week of the date of confirmation of the lease in his favour, deposit a sum which together with the security referred to in clause (a) would make up one fourth of the total lease amount. This sum shall ordinarily be adjusted towards the instalments of the lease amount overdue from the lessee; and towards the loss, if any, sustained by resale or departmental management; and (ii) the balance of the lease amount shall be paid within a period of nine months commencing on the 1st April of every year on or before the date specified in lease deed. The auction was conducted as per the directions of the District Panchayat Officer and in accordance with the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 28.04.2007. The bid of petitioner was also unanimously accepted by the Gram Panchayat vide its Resolution dated 31.03.2010. When payment of fifty per cent of the bid amount and the receipt of the same has been accepted by Gram Panchayat and admittedly the bid submitted by petitioner is highest, this Court does not find any infirmity even if there is payment of fifty per cent highest bid by way of adjustment. The submission of counsel that in matters of contracts interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not called for is misconceived. It is well settled that the public authority even in contractual matters cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily. If, after the award, there is a dispute between the employer and contractor is altogether different matter in which case, a writ petition would not lie. For the reasons as above, both the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Gram Panchayat to implement the resolution dated 31.03.2010 with regard to allotment of weekly cattle market in Konda Mallepalli, Nalgonda District. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.06.2010 Pln * The parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.7379 of 2010 [1] (2005) 1 SCC 679