- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 3-7-2003 (Annexure 1 to the petition) and lease deed dated 25-7-2003 in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 during the pendency of the writ petition. The respondents No. 5 and 6 were granted mining lease for three years which started from 28th April, 2000 and hence it came to an end on 27-4-2003. We are not going into the various points urged before us because we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed on the short point that once the period of the lease in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 expired on 27-4-2003 there is no question of extension of the lease, and instead there should have been a fresh public auction/public tender after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation. This procedure is essential, as otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution will be violated. Transparency in public administration also requires that such a procedure should be followed whenever any public contract is granted. It may be mentioned that the owner of the land is the State Government and a Bhumidhar under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is not the owner of the land, but he is only tenant, the owner is the State as the land is vested in it under Section 4 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. Hence it is not correct to say that the land belongs to the Bhumidhar. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U. P. , 2003 (1) CRC 362: (AIR 2003 SC 833 ). In our opinion this decision is wholly distinguishable as Article 14 of the Constitution has not been considered therein at all.
(3.) IN Ziauddin v. Commissioner, Moradabad, 2003 All LJ 1802 a Division Bench of this Court has held that all contract of public property must ordinarily be granted by advertising in well known newspapers having wide circulation, and thereafter holding public auction/public tender so as to comply with Article 14 of the Constitution. This view has been taken in A. S. Advertising Company v. Nagar Nigam, Meerut, 2001 (1) UPLBEC 125: 2001 All LJ 274 as well as in Karan Singh v. State of U. P. , 2001 (1) UPLBEC 128: 2001 All LJ 276. In these decisions we have referred to some earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court.;