IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11065 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR s/o Sakaldeo Prasad, resident of village- Roh, P.S.Roh,District-Nawada. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Nawada. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nawada. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Nawada. 5.The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Nawada 6. Chhotelal Yadav s/o Dukhi Yadav, resident of village- Nehaluchak, P.S. Nawada,District-Nawada. ----------- 3 24.11.2009. The present dispute relates to settlement of a bus stand by the District Board, Nawadah. Petitioner alleges that he had also given his bid but by managing bid sheet surreptitiously in which he was shown absent. He was eliminated and for the same amount of the bid private respondent was wrongly settled. A counter affidavit has been filed today by the District Board, Nawadah in which the bid sheet is annexed . The bid sheet shows petitioner absent. Petitioner states that that has been subsequently prepared only to help the private respondent. He submits that even today he is ready to pay the entire amount of one year settlement in one installment itself. Having heard the parties, in my view, in view of the basic fact whether petitioner was present or not being a serious issue, which cannot be resolved in the present proceeding, I am not inclined to entertain this application. However, I would like to point out some disturbing feature as has been brought to this Court, so that they are not repeated in future. Firstly, as per tender notice/settlement notice, parties were to deposit the entire year’s bid amount at one go. The bid 2 sheet, as annexed, would show that various parties had bid much higher but when their bids were to be accepted, they backed out saying that they cannot deposit the amount in one go i.e. for the entire year. Their bids were thus cancelled. Private –respondent’s bid was accepted but curiously the bid having been accepted he was permitted to deposit monthly instalment. He was ready to deposit the settlement money in instalment changing the various conditions that cannot be done i.e. a breach of the bid condition .Secondly the bids were invited without any demand of earnest money and/or security money. Earnest money is to ensure bonafide and not speculative bid. Here it would be seen that various parties gave their bids but then backed out with no obligation to pay any amount or get their earnest money forfeited, for there was no earnest money. That itself is against the open competent bid which is in order to avoid speculative bid and non bonafide bid that earnest money/security money is demanded before. That would avoid unfair practice.As in the present case where people’s bid were very high but then they backed out without they were asked to deposit the money in one instalment as per advertisement. Lastly, why and how the Board took the decision to change the terms of the settlement is not known but all I can say is that once settlement is made on certain terms which are applicable to all applicants. After the settlement is made, those terms cannot be relaxed or altered because if it was known to others that payment could be made in instalment then as would be apparent from the bid sheet itself several others could have opted to take the settlement at 3 much higher amount but privilege of instalments were not given to them. These are serious issues which have to be considered by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nawadah and remedial steps shall be taken immediately which would be in larger public interest as well as interest of revenue. Another disturbing issue is that the terms of settlement itself stated that if the money is not deposited in entirety on the next day, the settlement could be settled. Admittedly, money has not been deposited even after three months, the settlement has not been cancelled. Further private respondent was directed to deposit the second final instalment by 12.8.09 and it is not in dispute that we are towards the end of November, 2009, the amount has not yet been deposited but the settlement has not been cancelled. These are matters of concern, which should be addressed by the authorities including D.D.C. –cum- Chief Executive Officer, Nawadah, District Board. The Court has observed these facts in public interest and in interest of revenue of the Board. Board is not a private property of any individual. This disposes the writ petition. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)