R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute in this petition is whether the opposite-parties committed any error of law in refusing to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, for collecting toll tax from setu bridge, which was auctioned in favour of the petitioner on 7-10-1986. It is not disputed that after the bid was finalised, the petitioner deposited the required sum and the bid was approved and accepted by the Commissioner. Subsequently, before the lease deed could be executed, a radiogram was received from the State Government directing the Commissioner that in case the lease deed had not been executed, the same be not executed till further orders, consequently, in pursuance of the radiogram received from the State Government, the Commissioner directed that the right to collect the toll from the aforesaid bridge may be re-Auctioned. Even in counter-Affidavit it is not averred that the auction or the approval given by the Commissioner was cancelled. In Beni Madho Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, ALJ 1986 Vol. 1552, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the powers of auctioning the right to collect toll tax is delegated under the Uttar Pradesh Levy Collection Toll Tax Act, 1920, to the Commissioner and once the power was delegated to the Commissioner, it is he who is empowered to approve the highest bid and it was not open to the State Government to cancel the same, without assigning any reason. From the radiogram it is apparent that it does not contain any reason. Even in the counter-Affidavit or the supplementary counter-Affidavit it has not been stated as to what persuaded the Government to issue the radiogram. Not only this in the supplementary counter-Affidavit filed even the information sent by the appropriate authority, stating that by the bid in favour of the petitioner the Government or the opposite-parties shall be benefited, has not been controverted. The action of the opposite-party, therefore, is not sustainable.
(2.) For the reasons, stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and a direction is issued to the opposite-parties to permit the petitioner to collect toll from setu bridge, which was auctioned in his favour on 7-10-1986, within ten days from the date on which a copy of this order is produced, for a period of two years only on payment of the yearly amount for which the auction was, concluded in his favour. Petition allowed.;