IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9796 of 2008 Amit Kumar Singh, son of Sri Parash Nath Singh, Resident of Bara Harakh, P.S. Pakaridayal, District-East Champaran ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, East Champaran at Motihari 3. The Chairman, Motihari District Board, East Champaran, Motihari 4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Board, East Champaran, Motihari 5. The District Engineer, District Board, East Champaran, Motihari 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakaridayal, East Champaran, Motihari 7. Premchand Kumar, son of Kalabu Pd., Resident of Majher, P.S. Pakaridayal, East Champaran …………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha & Ajay Kumar Singh For Zila Parishad: Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Giridhar Gopal Tiwary, JC to AAG 2 ----------- 4. 24.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the East Champaran Zila Parishad and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities of the Zila Parishad, East Champaran, Motihari to issue agreement in his favour with respect to settlement of Pakrideyal Taxi Stand falling within East Champaran Zila Parishad for which he claims to have already deposited the bid amount. The short facts of this case are that on the basis of a notice inviting applications/tenders for settlement of Pakrideyal Taxi Stand for the year 2008-09 for collecting parking fees from the Taxies using the said stand, the petitioner along with six others including Respondent No.7 applied for taking the said settlement. The date of bidding was originally fixed on 14.3.2008 but subsequently postponed - 2 - to 25.3.2008, 28.3.2008, 8.4.2008 and 10.4.2008 and ultimately it was fixed for 11.4.2008. On 11.4.2008 five persons including the petitioner appeared and the petitioner was the highest bidder at Rs. 12,000/-. After the bid was over the petitioner also deposited Rs. 12,000/- on the same day and receipt was duly issued to him. The petitioner claims that despite the deposit of the amount by him, he is not being allowed to collect the parking charges from the taxies and the authorities have connived with Respondent No. 7 for collecting the same. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Zila Parishad, the stand taken is that the petitioner has suppressed the true facts specially the fact regarding the subsequent re-auction held on 25.4.2008. It is the case of the respondent-Zila Parishad that on the next date of the auction, i.e., 12.4.2008 the respondent no. 7 had appeared before the Chief Executive Officer stating that for reasons beyond his control he could not appear in the auction on that date and shown his readiness to deposit 25% more than the bid amount so that re-auction could be held. It is the stand of the respondents that in the terms and conditions of public auction it had been clearly stated that the bid shall be given recognition only after the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad approves the same and in the present case the bid of the petitioner has not yet been approved by the Chief Executive Officer and considering the higher offer made by the respondent no. 7, the Chief Executive Officer decided that re- bidding should be held on 25.4.2008 for which a general notice was - 3 - issued as on the previous occasion and personal notice was also given to the petitioner through the office peon but the petitioner refused to accept the same. It is submitted that the petitioner was at all times fully aware of the re-bidding directed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad which was held on 25.4.2008 in which as many as four of the applicants participated and ultimately the highest bid was offered by the respondent no. 7 at Rs. 1, 66,000/- which is nearly 14 times more than the amount offered by the petitioner earlier. It is thus, the contention of learned counsel for the Zila Parishad that its action is justified both on the basis of the applicable procedure as well as the final result in the process of re-bidding which has worked to the great advantage of the Zila Parishad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities of the Zila Parishad having once accepted the bid amount from the petitioner there was a concluded contract between him and the Zila Parishad which the authorities have no power to cancel. It is further submitted that thereafter, the authorities have proceeded in collusion with Respondent No. 7 and in a hush-hush manner, without notifying the re-bidding in the newspapers and, as a matter of fact, without even holding any re-bidding and behind the back of the petitioner, the respondent no.7 has been favoured with the contract for the settlement of the Taxi Stand in question. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad, on the other hand, submits that the very prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to issue the agreement in his favour - 4 - goes to show that there was no concluded contract between the parties. He also refers to the conditions of the bidding in which it was clearly stated that the bidding shall not be recognized until it has been approved by the Chief Executive Officer and further the authorities had reserved their right to accept or cancel the bid. It is submitted that so far as the deposit of the bid amount by the petitioner is concerned, it was one of the terms of the auction itself that immediately after the bidding was over, the deposit of bid amount had to be made and therefore mere deposit of the amount does not create a concluded contract. Learned counsel also contends that in the present matter notices have been issued as earlier also by pasting the same at different places in the premises of the Zila Parishad and apart from that the petitioner was also directly informed and he had full notice of the re-bidding process and he has deliberately chosen not to receive the notice by signing the same which is clear from the service report. It is further submitted that the petitioner having been successful in the earlier bid could not have been unaware of the fresh bidding process since he claims to be regularly approaching the Zila Parishad authorities after the deposit of the bid amount. It is also the case of the Zila Parishad that earlier the petitioner along with some of the other applicants had created a cartel and thereby suppressed the highest amount of bid at Rs. 12,000/- which was the reason why the Chief Executive Officer had not approved the settlement and when on the very next day, the - 5 - respondent no. 7 approached with an offer of re-bid at a higher amount at least 25% above the previous settlement, it was decided to go for re-bidding. The said decision was taken in public interest and in the interest of the finances of the Zila Parishad and the bona fides of the said decision is also borne out from the result of the re-auction held on 25.4.2008. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the material on the record that dates had been fixed for the auction and continued to be postponed. It has also come in the counter affidavit of the Respondent- Zila Parishad that the Respondent No. 7 was present on an earlier date on 28.3.2008 but since only one other applicant was present on that date the auction was postponed. In the said circumstances and considering the higher offer made by Respondent No. 7, explaining his absence on 11.4.2008 for reasons beyond his control, this Court considers the decision taken for re-auction as quite bona fide. The fact that the re-bidding has increased the settlement amount from Rs. 12,000/- to 1,66,000/- also shows that there was an unholy agreement among the participants during the bidding process on 11.4.2008 to suppress the amount of bid and get the settlement of the Taxi Stand at a throw-away amount. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the authorities of the Zila Parishad. There being no concluded contract with the petitioner since his bid - 6 - was not approved by the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner cannot claim the settlement in his favour merely because he had paid the bid amount. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The authorities of the Zila Parishad are directed to return the amount of Rs. 12,000/- deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)