IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.297 of 2006 Roza Hussain, son of Late Abdul Gaffar, Resident of Village – Nasriganj, Ward No. 7, P.S. Nasriganj, District – Rohtas ……..Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Mines Government of Bihar 3. The Collector, Rohtas 4. The Asstt. Mining Officer, Rohtas ………… Respondents/Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha (Special P.P. Mines) Mr. S.S. Mishra, J.C. to G.A. V -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 4th December, 2008. The appellant is unsuccessful petitioner. He filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: “I. That the respondents may be directed to return the bid money for the period during which the respondents themselves were conducting the ghat amounting to rupee 42 Lakhs II. That any other relief or reliefs may be allowed which may be just proper and equitable in the opinion of your Lordship.” 2. The writ petition was contested by the respondents. The single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition on 24th February, 2006. This order is under challenge in appeal. 3. For the calendar year 2003 ( 1st January, 2003 to 31st - 2 - December, 2003), an advertisement for settlement of all sand ghats in Rohtas district was issued and the bidding dates were fixed on 14th December, 2002, 21st December, 2002 and 28th December, 2002. Save and except for six ghats, on 14th December, 2002, none appeared for the other sand ghats to give any bid in the auction. In respect of six sand ghats, different persons gave different bids but in so far as sand ghat from Danwar to Nasriganj ghat is concerned, the bid of the petitioner for Rs.88,92,786/- was the highest. According to the petitioner, he deposited Rs.45,07,300/- on 14th December, 2002. Since auction for all the sand ghats could not be done, the Collector, Rohtas sought approval from the State government for settlement of six ghats. The State government considered the matter and it seems that in order to avoid a major revenue loss to it, by way of non-settlement of remaining ghats, it directed the authorities to arrange for fresh auction of all the sand ghats. Consequently, re-auction was fixed for all sand ghats in the district of Rohtas on 7th January, 2003, 13th January, 2003 and 20th January, 2003. Reserve price for all the ten ghats in Rohtas district for excavation of sand was fixed at Rs.4,06,43,723/-. In the second auction, the petitioner did not participate and one Faiyaz Ahmad gave a bid of Rs.2,32,72,706/-. Since bid offered by Faiyaz Ahmad was much below the reserve price, the matter was referred to the State government. At that time, the petitioner made representation through letter addressed to the Collector, Rohtas that he was ready and willing to offer Rs.2,34,99,587/- but the bid be restricted between him - 3 - and Faiyaz Ahmad. Before the State government, thus, there were two offers; one, by Faiyaz Ahmad at Rs.2,32,72,706/- and the other, through the letter made by the petitioner for Rs.2,34,99,587/-. The State government on 13th February, 2003 acceded to the request of the petitioner by confining the limited bid between him and Faiyaz Ahmad. The limited bid was held on 15th February, 2003 in which, the petitioner offered Rs.2,35,00,786/-. The bid of Faiyaz Ahmad was even lower. The bid of the petitioner being lower to the reserve price of Rs.4,06,43,723/-, the matter was again referred to the State government. The State government gave approval to the offer made by the petitioner and, consequently, the settlement was effected by issuance of work order in favour of the petitioner on 28th February, 2003 and he started excavating sand from 1st March, 2003. 3. The facts we have indicated above, which are not in dispute, must necessarily result in dismissal of the writ petition and the claim made by the petitioner for return of the bid money for the period during which he was not able to conduct sand excavation of the subject ghats is found to be untenable. As a matter of fact, the State government showed an extraordinary favour to the petitioner by accepting his bid which he sent through his letter although he did not participate in the auction. Ordinarily, his bid was not fit to be accepted as he did not make his bid through the process of auction and his bid was far less the reserve price. 4. Be that as it may, since this point is not an issue before - 4 - us, we leave it at that. Dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/