RAMPATI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash the order for fresh auction of lot No. 166 of Kolhan Forest Division and to command the respondents to execute a deed of lease in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts are short and simple. By a notification published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 3rd Sept., 1975 there was a notice of auction sale of forest coupe under the Kolhan Forest Division for the period 1975-76 ending on the 31st Dec., 1976. In this case we are concerned with only one lot, namely, lot No. 166 corresponding to plot No. 166. A public auction of the coupe of the aforesaid forest division was held in accordance with the notice published in the aforesaid notification from the 10th of Sept., 1975 to the 13th Sept., 1975 and the auction of lot No. 166 is said to have taken place on the 12th Sept., 1975. The average price for which the particular coupe in question had been settled during the last three years was Rupees 60,495 and the reserve price fixed for the year 1975-76 was Rs. 61,900. Six auction-purchasers including the petitioner took part in the auction sale of lot No. 166. The petitioner's bid was the highest being Rs. 65,200. The Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 4, who was conducting the auction, knocked down the bid in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the security money after the aforesaid auction, as was envisaged by the terms in the notification, aforesaid. According to the petitioner's case, on 18th of Sept., 1975, i. e. after six days of the auction, Messrs D.N. Prasad and Company of Manoharpur, which has not been made party to this application, filed an application before the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, respondent No. 3, to the effect that on the 12th Sept., 1975 at 1.20 p. m. Shri D.N. Prasad representing M/s. D.N. Prasad and Company left the place of auction for the State Bank of India, Chaibassa, because under the notification no bid was to be held during the period from 1.30 p. m. to 2.30 p. m. It was alleged that the auction of lot No. 166 had taken place during that period so that the aforesaid Messrs D.N. Prasad and Company could not participate in the auction. The petitioner asserts that such a petition had been filed on incorrect facts with ulterior motive by the aforesaid D.N. Prasad and Co. since that firm was neither represented by any one nor was, for that matter, Shri D.N. Prasad present at any time during the auction of the concerned lot. All the same, Messrs D.N. Prasad and Company had, in its application to respondent No. 3, offered a minimum price of Rs. 75,000 for the settlement of the aforesaid lot. On 19-11-75, however, it sent another application to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar, respondent No. 2, in which it offered Rs. 85,000 and along with the letter a bank draft of Rs. 10,000 by way of security deposit was also sent to respondent No. 2, which, according to the petitioner's case, was illegally accepted by him. Be that as it may, on the aforesaid application of D.N. Prasad and Co., respondent No. 3 called for a report from respondent No. 5, the Conservator of Forests (wrongly mentioned as Forest Conservator), Southern Circle, Ranchi. Respondent No. 5, in his turn, sent a copy of the letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 4, for his comments. Ultimately, respondent No. 4 reported that the allegations made by the aforesaid M/s. D. N. Prasad & Co. were factually incorrect. This report of respondent No. 4 was duly endorsed to respondent No. 5 who sent the same to respondent No. 3. Ultimately, however, the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, respondent No. 3, wrote a letter to the State Government in the Forest Department, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure 1 to the application. The entire set of facts as detailed above have been set out in Annexure 1, by which, after reciting all the facts, Government orders were solicited as to whether there should be a re-bid at a fresh auction of the aforesaid lot No. 166 or the bid of the highest bidder (namely, the petitioner) be approved. It was further suggested by respondent No. 3 in that letter that if the Government decided that there should be a fresh auction of that lot the minimum reserve price for the settlement should be fixed at Rupees 85,000. In para. 19 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that he has come to know from a reliable source that the respondent State has passed an order for fresh auction of lot No. 166 under Kolhan Forest Division and as the said order was not available to the petitioner, the same was not being produced in this Court. A prayer was accordingly made for calling up of that order for the purpose of quashing the same.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has not been denied that the State Government has issued such a direction for holding a fresh public auction for the settlement of lot No. 166. As a matter of fact, there is a tacit admission in para. 5 of the counter-affidavit regarding such a direction for fresh auction issued by the State Government. It has, however been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had not acquired any legal and valid claim over the coupe since the settlement in favour of the petitioner had not been approved by the competent authority. Under special condition of sale in Part II of the notification referred to above in Clause 13 it had been specifically mentioned that "Jab tak sakchham padadhikari dwara anusamarpit nahi ho jai tabtak koyi bikri manya nahi samjha jayega." In other words, until there is approval by the competent officer no sale or settlement shall be binding.