- (1.) R. A. Sharrna, J. On 24-8-1994 respondents issued an auction notice for auction of a Ghat for construction of the temporary bridge and its manage ment, fixing 7-9-1994 as the date for auction. This date was postponed from time to time and it was on 19-9-1994 that the auction could take place. It appears that bids offered at the auction were not adequate and, therefore, the respondents again issued auction notice on 26-9-1994 for the sams Ghat; but before the auction could take place the respondent No. 5 approach ed Government of U. P. and obtained a letter dated 24-9-1994, whereby the District Magistrate and Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur, were required to give the contract to it for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Laks), which is an amount higher than that for which the bids were offered at the auction, held on 19-9-1994. On the basis of this letter the contract has been given to respondent No. 5 for the Ghat in question. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed this writ petition challenging the settlement of the Ghat with the respondent No. 5.
(2.) THE Government of U. P. vide G. O, dated 13-1-1994 superseding all earlier orders in this connection has directed the settlement of the Ghat to be made only on the basis of public auction. A Division Bench of this Court in Mallah Jeewan Sudhar Samiti v. District Magistrate and others, 1994 HVD (All) Vol III 197, has laid down that after the aforesaid Government order dated 13-1-1994, it is not open to settle the Ghat by any means other than the public auction. Relevant extract from the decision of the Division Bench in this connection is reproduced below : "so long as there is no ambiguity, the language employed in the G. O, dated 13-1-94 will be given plain meaning without adding into foreign words and subtracting any words therefrom and that being done. THE only interpretation of G. O. dated 13-1-94 that can he made, is that the Government closed other options and directed the authorities to settle THEka only by public auction strictly in accordance with the earlier G. Os. This being the legal position, respondent No. 1 was not right in settling THEka with respondent No. 4 otherwise than by public auction THEka otherwise than by public auction was permitted by the Government by G. Os. dated 21-8-81 and that having been reversed to that extent by G. O. dated 13-1-94 respondent No. 1 illegally settled THEka in favour of respondent No. 4 on subsequent date otherwise than by public auction. " THE position of law being settled, the grant of the contract of the Ghat to the respondent No, 5 was, thus without authority of law. That apart, it may be mentioned that once the matter of settlement of Ghat by public auction has been laid down by the Government, it is open to it to make a departure from it on ad hoc basis in favour of any person. The Government order directing for settlement of Ghat in favour of respon dent No. 5 is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as other persons, who were desirous to get the contract for the Ghat, were not given any opportunity to compete with respondent No. 5 and offer their bids and were thus discriminated against without any justification. The directions for settlement of contract in favour of respondent No. 5 were issued secretly. The conduct of the Government in this connection does not appear to be fair. In such cases settlement on the basis of letters from the Government cast doubt on its bonafide, which may lead to avoidable speculation. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The orders dated 20-10-1994 and 25-10-1994 (Annexures VIII and X to the writ petition respectively) and the grant of contract to respondent No. 5 for the Ghat are quashed. As the Government has asked the grant of contract of the Cihat to respondent No. 5 in breach of its order dated 13-1-1994 and the decision of the Division Beach in the case of Mallah Jeewan Sudhar Samiti v. District Magistrate and others (supra), we consider it a fit case to award a special cost, which in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we assess at Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand), which shall be paid to the petitioner by the Government of U. P. within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the Secretary, Panchayat Raj. Secretariat, Lucknow, The respondents are directed to settle the Ghat in question by public auction, which should be held at the earliest after due publicity.
(3.) AS we are quashing the contract granted to respondent No. 5, we direct the respondents to return to it the amount, which has already been deposited with them by it for the Ghat within the same period of three months. Petition allowed. .;