- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition was finally decided by me on 17-5-2007 alongwith Writ Petition No. 39677 of 1997. I directed that the pond comprised in plot No. 268, 269, 270 and 646 total area 1. 781 hectares shall be auctioned for fisheries purposes for ten years after due advertisement and all efforts must be made to let out the pond, at least for Rs. 18,000/- per year. Thereafter, an application was field by respondent No. 5 in this writ petition, Ramroop Nishad on 10-7-2007 for recalling the order dated 17-5-2007. It was stated in the said application that the auction was scheduled to be held on 31-7-2007. I passed an order on 12-7-2007 on the said application directing that the auction should take place on the date already fixed and applicant, i. e. , respondent No. 5 Ramroop Nishad, should be permitted to participate in the auction. Thereafter, learned standing Counsel filed affidavit of Tehsildar sworn on 1-8-2007. In the said affidavit, it was mentioned that the pond has been let out for Rs. 24,60,000/- for ten years in favour of Parmarth son of Ramdas (i. e. , @ Rs. 2,46,000/- per year ). This amount must be an eye opener for everyone including State authorities. The pond has been let out @ Rs. 1,38,000/- per year per hectare. Respondent No. 5 filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 1-8- 2007. It was stated therein that he (Ramroop Nishad) was not permitted to participate in the bid. The Court on 9-8-2007 passed an order directing the learned Counsel for Ramroop Nishad to enquire from his client as to whether he was ready to pay more than Rs. 24,60,000/- for ten years for fisheries lease of the pond in dispute or not. Today learned Counsel for Ramroop Nishad categorically has stated that his client is not ready to pay more than the aforesaid amount and he is withdrawing his claim.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY, matter ends. Application dated 10-7-2007 filed by Ramroop Nishad-respondent No. 5 is dismissed. In the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the highest bid was of Ramayan son of Budhali, which was Rs. 24,65,000/ -. However, he did not deposit 1/4th amount, hence his earnest money of Rs. 1,15,000/- was forfeited and thereafter the pond was allotted to the second highest bidder, whose bid was Rs. 24,60,000/ -. It has further been stated that the earnest money of Rs. 1,15,000/- deposited by Ramayan has been forfeited. Due to his failure to deposit 1/4th amount of the bid, State suffered loss of Rs. 5,000/ -. Apart from it Ramayan is also liable to pay some damages to the State for his irresponsible behaviour. Accordingly, it is directed that out Rs. 1,15,000/- deposited by Ramayan son of Budhali as earnest money, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be forfeited by the State and rest amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be returned to Ramayan. The Court places on record its great appreciation for Collector, Deputy Collector and Tehsildar concerned. If they had not taken special interest and made special efforts, pond would not have been let out for such good amount.
(3.) A copy of this order be supplied free of cost to Sri N. P. Pandey, learned standing Counsel, by 20-8- 2007. Application dismissed. .;