- (1.) - The appellant, M/s. Rajshila, a firm of partners, seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated 31-1-1991 of the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad made in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2250 of 1991. Appellant challenged the award of the exclusive right to collect Toll on the bridge across Ganga at Jajmau, Kanpur Division in favour of M/ s. Munendra Nath Upadhyay and Company, the fourth respondent herein, at the auction held in that behalf on 14-11-1990.. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri R. B. Mishra for the State of Uttar Pradesh; and Sri R. N. Narsimhamoorthy learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4. Special leave is granted and the appeal taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment.
(3.) On the 21st of September, 1990, a public notice was caused to be issued by the authorities concerned inviting tenders from intending bidders for the award of the right to collect toll on the said bridge. The auction was originally fixed to be held on the 30th of October, 1990. Seven persons obtained tender papers but only two, the fourth respondent and another by the name Roshan Lal and Company, filed their tender papers in time. The auction which was scheduled to be held on 30th October, 1990 was postponed to 8th November, 1990 and thereafter to 14th November, 1990. At the auction held on 14th November, 1990, however, only the fourth respondent participated and offered a bid of Rs. 75 lakhs per year. Thereafter Roshan Lal and Company aired a grievance that the postponement of the auction from 8th November to 14th November, 1990 was done without due publicity; that it had been denied competitive participation and that it would offer a higher bid of Rs. 80 lakhs per year. In the light of this development, the authorities appeared to have communicated to the fourth respondent that its bid of Rs. 75 lakhs per year was inadequate and could not be accepted whereupon the fourth respondent communicated its willingness to offer Rs. 80.21 lakhs which was found acceptable and was accepted. The said Roshan Lal and Company did not bestir itself to agitate the matter any further. But the present appellant which did not participate in the auction came up before the High Court with the grievance that it was virtually prevented from participation at the auction. It was alleged that owing to a strike in Government offices during the period it had had to run from pillar-to-post to fulfil the precondition of a security deposit which, in view of the involved procedure, was rendered impossible to be fulfilled and that appellant tendered the cash security of Rs. 7 lakhs on the date of the auction and sought permission to participate. Upon this request being turned down appellant is said to have given an application on the same date signifying its willingness to offer Rs. 86 lakhs per year,;