IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18817 of 2011 Ramlesh Kumar son of Sri Ramchalitra Singh, resident of village + P.O. - Babhangama, P.S.-Birpur, Anchal-Barauni, Distt. Begusarai. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Collector, Begusarai. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Manjhoul, Begusari. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Manjhoul, Begusari. 5. The Circle Officer, Cheriyabariyarpur, Begusarai. …Respondent ---------------------------------- 5 21.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit and a supplementary affidavit have been filed on behalf of the parties. Petitioner is a provisional settlee of shairat known as Manjhaul bus stand. It is the case of the petitioner that the same was put to bid by open advertisement fixing reserve Jama for the same at Rs. 14, 28, 300/-. The petitioner participated in the open bid and was adjudged the highest bidder at Rs. 10 lacs for settlement of the aforesaid Shairat (bus stand) for the period 2011-12. The same was provisionally settled with the petitioner by the respondent Collector vide document placed at annexure-1. The settlement was provisional and subject to certain conditions including the one set out in 2 Clause-3 thereof. The authorities thereafter referred the matter to the Government in the Department of Finance for granting approval. It is the case of the respondent in the counter affidavit that the same was not approved by the Government on the plea that the shairat was settled for a value less than the reserved Jama. The said communication is annexure-A to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the said document, it appears that Government directed for taking another attempt by putting the Shairat on open bid after due advertisement. In the light of the said communication the respondents came out with an order dated 30.09.2011 contained in Memo No. 2289 issued by the respondent Collector (Annexure-3) whereby the provisional parwana issued in respect of the shairat in question in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide document contained in Annexure-3 and the same was again advertised for open bid (Annexure-4). In the counter affidavit the respondents have stated in paragraph-14 that nobody turned up to bid for the said shairat in the open bid. The authorities thereafter had to fix another date for such bidding. It is admitted position at bar that till date 3 nobody has turned up in pursuance of the advertisement to bid for the said shairat in face of the reserved Jama fixed therefor. It is to be noted here that the tenure of provisional settlement of the shairat with the petitioner is to expire with effect from 31.03.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although reserved Jama for the shairat in question was fixed at rupees fourteen lacs but the same was provisionally settled with the petitioner considering the fact that he was the highest bidder. It is next contended that on being provisionally settled the aforesaid shairat he made investment for the up keep of the shairat (bus stand) in terms of the clauses of settlement Annexure-1 and deposited the entire bid amount. It is also contended that without giving any notice the same was cancelled merely on the ground that the Finance Department had not approved the same. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the settlement itself made with the petitioner Annexure-1 was provisional and as such no vested legal right had accrued. The notice in such 4 circumstances was not required. I have heard the parties at length. There is no dispute that the reserved Jama fixed for the shairat in question was Rs. 14,28, 300/-. In terms of circular of the revenue department of the Government, the shairat (bus stand) was required to be settled by open bid. An open advertisement (Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit) was issued. The petitioner along with other participated therein. Petitioner was adjudged the highest bidder. In the light of said fact the same was provisionally settled with the petitioner by issuing provisional parwana (Annexure-1). There is no dispute that petitioner deposited the amount of rupees ten lacs vide documents contained in Annexure-2 series. The matter was thereafter referred to Government for granting approval. From Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit, it appears that the same was not approved and the authorities were directed to advertise the Shairat in question once again in order to get enhanced value of shairat. The pleadings made in the counter affidavit supported by the documents appended thereto (Annexure-C), it appears that the same was again put to open bidding at least on two 5 occasions after advertisement but no one turned up to bid for said shairat on the fixed Jama therefor set out in the advertisement. Obviously, the provisional settlement was not approved by the Government keeping in view the fact that the Shairat could have fetched more revenue to the government. It appears that the same was done but nobody turned up to bid for the said Shairat (bus stand) and willing to pay even more than ten lacs which was offered by the petitioner in the first open bid and accepted by the District Revenue Authorities whereafter provisional parwana was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand before this Court that in view of the order contained in the Annexure-3, he would not seek any remission in the bid amount duly deposited by him. It further appears that the petitioner made investments as per clauses of the settlement over the up keep of the bus stand. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the petitioner is permitted to continue with the shairat (bus stand) in question for the remaining three months i.e. up to 31.03.2012. This view has been taken considering the unambiguous stand taken 6 by the petitioner that he would not seek any claim/remission in the amount of bid (rupees ten lacs) on which the shairat in question was provisionally settled and the petitioner was allowed to realize revenue arising therefrom. The respondents on conclusion of the period of settlement shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law including putting the shairat in question on open bid. The present order should not be construed to mean that the reserved jama for the shairat in question has been reduced to rupees ten lacs only. The order contained in annexure-3 shall not be given effect to till 31.03.2012. The application stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. Saif/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)