IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5262 of 2009 MANJAR ALAM S/O LATE SHARIF, R/O VILL- ARHRAHA NADARGANJ, PS- SIMRAHA, FORBESHGANJ, DISTT-ARARIA--------- --------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,ARARIA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FOR5BESGANJ,DISTT- ARARIA 5. MD.SHAMIM S/O NOT KNOWN,R/O VILL-JHIRWA PURWARI,PO- SIMRAHA, PS-SIMRAHA,FORBESGANJ,DISTT-ARARIA-RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 6.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Allegation has been made in the writ application that for extraneous consideration respondent no.4, the Circle Officer did not accept the highest bid of the petitioner of about Rs. 11,00,200/-, for settlement of the Hat but went for a fresh auction two days later on 12.4.2009 and settled the Hat for a very very reduced figure of three lakhs odd in favour of respondent no.5. A statement has been made in the writ application that after deposit of 25% of the bid amount on the date of auction i.e. 10.4.2009, petitioner wanted two days time to deposit the balance amount but that he was not permitted or allowed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Circle Officer where a categorical statement has been made that though the petitioner was the highest bidder but he did not deposit the bid amount nor did he approach respondent no.4 for refund of the security money deposited by him. That was not the only reason with regard to fresh tender as even the second highest bidder did not turn up after the auction held on 10.4.2009. Therefore in terms - 2 - of the advertisement contained in annexure-1 they had to go for fresh bidding on 12.4.2009. On 12th the highest bid was of respondent no.5 and he had deposited the bid amount instantaneously. In view of above there has been no wrong doing even though the petitioner sees foul play in the whole procedure. There is no rebuttal to the statement made in the paragraph -6 of the writ application. If that is so then the subsequent auction was forced to be held because of the conduct of the petitioner. Another aspect of the matter which emerges is that the settlement was made in favour of respondent no.5 way back in April, 2009 and only about little over three months is left for the settlement period to get over. This is yet another ground why the Court is not inclined to interfere with the settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record communication of the Divisional Commissioner of Purnea Division addressed to Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner Revenue and Land Reforms as well as the Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms. This is letter no. 3011 dated 31.10.2009 where certain administrative omissions and lapses have been pointed out with regard to the settlement of the Hat in question. Since that is not the issue before this Court, therefore nothing is being recorded in this regard. But if a Senior functionary has brought certain omissions and commissions relating to the loss of revenue of the State to the higher authorities - 3 - the Court expects follow up action for the same within a time frame. There is nothing to indicate as to what development has been made on the issue. Let the two Principal Secretaries look into matter and do the needful on the administrative side. Let a copy of the order be communicated to both of the Principal Secretaries for follow up action. So far this writ application is concerned it is dismissed as devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)