K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the highest bidder at the auction held on 29-3-1989 regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 in the Notified area, Obra, district Sonbhadra. THE petitioner has attached annexures '1' and '2' to the petition to demonstrate that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money and a sum of Rs. 28,250/- was paid as the first instalment. Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that the papers were sent to the Collector, district Sonbhadra regarding the highest bid at the auction in favour of the petitioner. Annexure '6' indicates that the Prabhari Adhikari had accepted the highest bid in favour of the petitioner. Annexure '5' indicates that on the application of one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, the proceedings for auction held on 29-3-1989 in favour of the petitioner should be set aside and if the aforesaid Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi deposites 1/4th of the higher offer made by him within three days, his offer should be treated as the first bid and fresh auction should be done. Annexure '7' indicates that further proceedings regarding fresh auction is to be held. Annexure '8' dated 30-4-1989 indicates that re-auction regarding tahbazari theka for the year 1989-90 is to take place.
(2.) IN the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has prayed for quashing the order dated 14-4-1989, 19-4-1989 and 14-5-1989 contained in annexures '5', '7' and '10' as is evident from relief (i) claimed in the writ petition. The second prayer made in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the peaceful working of the petitioner as thekedar for collecting tahbazari within the Notified area Obra, district Sonbhadra and thereafter the general relief has been claimed. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Notified Area, Obra, district Sonebhadra and one Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi at whose instance the highest bid of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Collector, opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure '5' has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the aforesaid order is bad in law and adversely affects the claim of the petitioner and deserve to be quashed. It has also been contended that the order dated 19-4-1989 contained in annexure '7' and the order dated 14-5- 1989 contained in annexure '10' (not on the record) should also be quashed as they are consequential orders in pursuance of the order contained in annexure '5'. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have emphasised that the petitioner has no right to maintain the present writ petition. According to them, the auction held on 29-3-1989 in favour of the petitioner was not a fair transaction as proper publication had not taken place and the persons who were present at earlier occasion were not informed and given due notice and that the bid of the petitioner was inadequate.
(3.) WE have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and we have gone through the material attached with he writ petition, supplementary affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. In our opinion the order dated 14-4-1989, contained in annexure '5' is patently erroneous and illegal as it has been rendered without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have emphasised that the highest bid offered by the petitioner required acceptance by the District Magistrate. Therefore, even if no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14-4-1989 contained in annexure '5' does not suffer from any error of law and it is immune from being quashed. No specific bye-law or rules has been placed before us in support of the contention that the highest bid at the auction required acceptance by the District Magistrate. It would not be out of place to mention here that our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 7 and 15 of annexure '3' and it has been emphasised that the bid required acceptance but a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs does not indicate that the acceptance by the Collector was necessary in the facts and circumstances or this case. Rather, annexure '6' of the writ petition indicates that the offer of the petitioner had been accepted by the Prabhari Adhikari. For the sake of argument even if it is accepted that the highest bid of the petitioner required acceptance by the Collector, had the Collector rejected the offer suo motu, it could be said that no opportunity to the petitioner was necessary. But, when the Collector rejected the bid of the petitioner on the application of Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, the minimum requirement from him was to give an opportunity to the petitioner to justify that the auction knocked down in favour of the petitioner was fair and due notice had been given to the persons concerned. Since the Addl. Collector in passing the impugned order dated 14-4-1989 has not observed the rule of fair play and has not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, we think that the order suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed.;