A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against an auction dated 25-2-1991 conducted by the respondent Zila Parishad for settling a contract for the collection of bones, hide and carcasses etc. for the year beginning 1-4-1991. The petitioner claims to be an Industrial Cooperative Society registered under the LI. P. Cooperative Societies Act by the Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari/Registrar, Khadi Gram Udyog Sahkari Board. A copy of the registration certificate issued to the petitioner under Section 8 (1) of the Cooperative Societies Act has been filed with the petition as Annexure 1. The petitioner further asserts that the Society comprises members of Harijan community or backward Muslim community of Qureshies who have been traditionally engaged in the trade of collection and disposal of carcasses and bones etc. from the time of their ancestors. It is claimed that the Society has been formed for promoting the interest of its members in the collection of carcasses and bones etc. The contention is that in spite of the Government Orders issued on the subject from time to time providing that a contract for collecting bones, hide and carceasses should be settled only with such societies and not otherwise, the Zila Parishad illegally settled the contract with in an individual arrayed as respondent no. 3 herein.
(2.) ON these facts the petitioner Society has prayed for quashing of the auction dated 25-2-1991 held by the Zila Parishad. At this auction the third respondent Gulam Rasul was adjudged as the highest bidder and the contract has been settled with him. Two counter affidavits have been filed : one, on behalf of the Zila Parishad and the other by the third respondent. It is significant to mention that a clear and categorical assertion made by the petitioner that it is a bona- fide Industrial Cooperative Society registered under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act by the Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari/Registrar, Khadi Gram Udyog Sahkari Board and that it is composed of the members belong to a section of the society which is traditionally engaged in the trade has gone almost totally unrebutted. All that the Zila Parishad has to say in its counter affidavit is that many contractors are trading in the name of such Industrial Cooperative Societies. This is hardly any rebuttal, categorical or otherwise, of the positive assertion made by the petitioner that it is a genuine society consisting of such members. This being so, it is a apparent that the impugned action cannot be sustained. The contract could not be legally settled with an individual. If an industrial society is available in the Block in question, the contract should first have been offered to the society which has made the application in that behalf. Allotment of the contract to the third respondent was thus in the teeth of the Government Orders true copies whereof have been annexed to the petition. The Government Orders clearly strees that where a duly registered industrial Cooperative Society consisting of members belonging to community who are traditionally engaged in this trade is available the contract should not be put to general auction but should be settled only with that society. It is thus apparent that the impugned auction is liable to be quashed being in manifest breach of the Government Orders.
(3.) SRI N. S. Chaudhary, however, submitted that the respondent Zila Parishad had sought the approval of the State Government with regard to the auction proposed to be held by it and that the said matter is still pending before the State Government. In this view, it was urged, this court should not interfere until the State Government has taken a decision in the matter. We are unable to agree. The matter which is pending before the State Government is one pertaining to the grant of approval of the action proposed to be taken by the Zila Parishad for settling the contract through a general auction. The objection raised by the petitioner, however, is that a general auction was not permissible at all as a society duly registered with the Khadi Gram Udyog Board was available. The pendency of the above matter before the State Government was, therefore, of no consequence and could not cure the fundamental defect from which the impugned auction inherently suffered.;