M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the general advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2, Secretary (Distraction and Marketing) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Giridih for settlement of Hooti Bazar Hat and also the letter dated 15.2.2001 whereby one Mahendra Prasad was directed to deposit Rs. 33,000/ -and informing him that a fresh bid will be held on 23.6.2001.
(2.) THE petitioners case is that a general notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 for settlement of different markets/Hat including Hooti Hat and the date of auction was fixed on 13.2.2001. It is stated that the petitioner and other bidders participated in the auction on 13.2.2001 and petitioner became the highest bidder. Accordingly, he deposited 50% of the total required amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/ - on 13.2.2001. The petitioners case further is that instead of settling the Hat in favour of the petitioner the respondents illegally and arbitrarily issued impugned advertisement for re -auction of the said market and further sent a letter to one Mahendra Prasad for depositing the money. A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was merely a highest bidder in auction. Since the auction was not found valid, the same was not accepted. It is stated that in the auction notice it was clearly stated that the committee has a right to cancel any auction. The respondents case is that general guideline issued by the Marketing Board requires that auction has to be held in presence of SDO or Chairman of the Marketing Committee and if the bid amount is above Rs. 50,000/ - then the bid has to be approved by the Board. It is stated that on 13.2.2001 although the bid was held but due to some urgent law and order problem the Chairman of the Committee could not remain present in the auction. Moreover, some complaints were received from the public that they could not participate in the auction. Taking into consideration all these facts the respondents decided to re -auction the Hat and a general advertisement was issued to that effect.
(3.) THIS matter was heard on 12.3.2001 and in order to find out the correctness of the statements made in the counter -affidavit, this Court directed the counsel for the respondents to produce the original record of the proceeding alongwith the petition purported to have been made by Sushil Kumar Yadav. Pursuant to that order the respondents produced all the original documents. From perusal of the minutes of the proceeding dated 13.2.2001 it appears that auction was held on 13.2.2001 in absence of the Chairman of the Committee and although the bid was held but the matter was deferred to 15.2.2001 for taking a decision. The minutes of 15.2.2001 shows that in the meeting presided by the Chairman of the Committee it was decided to re -auction the Hat because of certain irregularities in the auction held on 13.2.2001.;