- (1.) LISTS revised. None appears for respondents No. 3 to 7. We have, therefore, heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 only.
(2.) THE case of the petitions is that by order dated 9-3-1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) a contract for collecting carcasses in Block Chhata was given to the petitioner and he was permitted to carry on the contract for the year 1994-95 which will be ending on 31st March, 1995, because he was the highest bidder. Later on, respondent No. 7 approached the Hon'ble Minister respondent No. 5, who passed an order, which was communicated by respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, by an order dated 31-3-1994 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) that the contract already given to the petitioner be cancelled and contract for Blocks Chhata and Chauguha be given in favour of respondent No. 7 who was ready at the subsequent stage to offer Rs. 3 lacs for both the blocks. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that Theka having been given by order dated 9-3- 1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 could not make interference in the matter and that the order dated 9th March, 1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) could have been cancelled only by a competent authority, which has not been alone. We find substance in the submission of the petitioner. If respondent No. 7 was interested in the aforesaid Theka then he should have participated in the auction and then he should have offered his bid. An auction was held and then the petitioner alone turned out to be the highest bidder and he was permitted to carry out the Theka by order dated 9-3-1994. The contract having been concluded between the petitioner and respondents it was not open for respondent No. 5 or any other respondent to interfere with the said contract except in accordance with law.
(3.) FOR the reasons, aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-3-1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) communicating the order passed by respondent No. 5 is quashed. Petition allowed. .;