Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. - (1.) -By consent of the parties this writ application is treated as on days list and taken up for final hearing/disposal.
(2.) THE writ petitioner has come up before this Court by means of this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of a resolution of Nagar Panchayat, Goverdhan, district Mathura, dated 1st October, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and order dated 4th October, 2003, passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura-respondent No. 4 granting contract to Sri Om Prakash-respondent No. 3 and for quashing all other subsequent orders or acts consequent to the resolution dated 1st October, 2003. In the resolution No. 1 the Nagar Panchayat, Goverdhan resolved to cancel the contract granted in favour of the writ petitioner whereas under resolution No. 2 the letter dated 1st October, 2003, submitted by the writ petitioner expressing his inability to continue with the contract was considered and it was resolved that the contract may be cancelled w.e.f. 1st October, 2003. We have heard Sri A. P. Sahi, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, Sri Jamwant Maurya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri R. B. Singhal, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 6, Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel for State-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and have also perused the entire materials available on record.
(3.) THE dispute raised in this writ application relates to a contract for realisation of parking fees. It has been alleged in the writ application that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper a public auction was held on 16th June, 2003, for awarding the contract for realisation of parking fees from 20th June, 2003 to 31st March, 2004. THE Bid of the writ petitioner being the highest was accepted and on the basis of the approval granted by the Collector/District Magistrate, Mathura-respondent No. 4, a letter dated 20th June, 2003, was issued to the writ petitioner awarding the contract in his favour. Although a copy of the letter dated 20th June, 2003, was annexed with the writ application but the writ petitioner in the writ application has not annexed the terms and conditions of the contract. In the writ application it has been alleged that on the basis of the resolution dated 1st October, 2003, the contract of the writ petitioner was cancelled and an amount of Rs. 80,000 was ordered to be paid to the writ petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in fact, no resolution was passed on 1st October, 2003 and the letter dated 1st October, 2003, was never written by him. THE writ petitioner further alleged that the contract was cancelled by the Nagar Panchayat without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. THE writ petitioner next alleged that subsequently, the contract for the remaining period was awarded to Sri Om Prakash respondent No. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Adhyaksh Nagar Panchayat, Govardhan. The terms of auction have been annexed as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. Apart from mentioning the manner in which the Bid amount was to be deposited, it has also been stated that under Clause 18 of the terms of auction, in the event any dispute arose in the contract, the District Magistrate would be the authority entitled to take a decision in the matter. In the counter-affidavit it was further alleged that the writ petitioner defaulted in depositing the amount as per the schedule indicated in the agreement, as a result of which a notice dated 26th August, 2003, was sent to him by the Nagar Panchayat. Therefore, it cannot be safely concluded that no opportunity was afforded to the writ petitioner. In fact the writ petitioner himself had submitted the letter which was placed in the meeting of the Nagar Panchayat held on 1st October, 2003. In the said letter, the writ petitioner stated that he was unable to continue with the contract since the Corporation buses and the tempos were not paying the parking fees, accordingly, it was requested that an appropriate decision may be taken in the matter. It was in these circumstances the meeting of Nagar Panchayat took place on 1st October, 2003. It was further stated that the writ application itself was not maintainable since there was no statutory contract between the writ petitioner and the Nagar Panchayat and for any dispute regarding breach of contract, the proper course for the writ petitioner was to file a civil suit or resort to the provisions of Clause 18 of the terms of auction. It was further stated that after the contract of the writ petitioner was cancelled a fresh contract was entered into with respondent No. 3, Om Prakash for the period from 5th October, 2003 to 31st March, 2004 at the rate of Rs. 11,000 per day on the basis of the auction held on 4th October, 2003, in which the Bid of respondent No. 3 was the highest.;