Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had a licence for disposal of dead body by Nagar Nigam, Varanasi (the Nagar Nigam) for the year 2007-08. This was for Rs. 44,000.00. It was come to an end on 24.6.2008. THE Nagar Nigam again advertised for fresh auction for the year 1008-09 on 3.4.2008. THE auction in pursuance of the same was held on 15.4.2008. However it was not settled in favour of any one and a fresh notice for auction was advertised on 20.6.2008 for the auction on 27.6.2008. However, this time also, it was not settled. Subsequently this license has been given to respondent no.6 for three financial years starting from 28.11.2008, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard counsel for the petition, the standing counsel Sri Ashok Kumar Rai and Sri DD Gupta for respondent no. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that auction in favour of respondent no. 6 is illegal as it has been done by private negotiations. This is correct as twice notice of the auction was given on 3.4.2008 and 20.6.2008 but auction was not settled. The auction has been subsequently settled in favour of respondent no. 6 without there being any fresh advertisement. However, this is not end of the matter. The petitioner had given applications on 26.6.2008 and 18.11.2008 offering Rs.20,000/- for the license for the remaining period of financial year 2008-09 whereas for the previous year itself he had given Rs. 44,000.00 for the license. The Nagar Nigam wrote two letters on 5.11.2008 and 12.11.2008 to petitioner asking him if he was interested for getting license for three years after increasing 10% every year from the amount given in the previous year namely Rs.44,000.00. but no reply was received by the Nagar Nigam. On the contrary, the respondent had given an application on 15.11.2008 giving 10% increase on the amount given in previous year by the petitioner namely Rs.48,400.00 for the financial year 2008-09 and thereafter increasing every year for the 10% for every year for the next two years.
(3.) IN the financial year 2008-09 respondent no. 6 has worked from 28.11.2008 to 31.3.2009 about for four months whereas he has given Rs. 48,400.00. The petitioner was offering only Rs.20,000.00 for the period from 26.6.2008 to 31.3.2009. The bid offered by the petitioner not only much less than the respondent but he was also given similar offer as given to respondent no. 6 before it was offered to respondent no.6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no justification to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that after end of the contract with Respondent no. 6, the fresh grant of license may be finalised after advertising in the newspapers. With These observations the writ petition is dismissed.;