M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu by which settlement of Sairat done in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled without hearing the petitioner and further for a direction to the respondents to settle the Sairat No. 15/2004 - 05 in favour of the petitioner for which the entire process has been completed. A further prayer has been made for initiation of a proceeding under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) PETITIONER 'scase is that respondent No. 3, the Circle Officer, Hussainabad issued a general notice dated 27.5.2004 for settlement of Sairat No. 15/2004 -05 for construction of temporary road on Koel River, Mohammadganj for the period 2004 -05 and the date of auction was fixed on 12.6.2004. Since the price offered by the participants was low, notice was published and the date was fixed for auction on 31.7.2004. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that on 31.7.2004 auction was held in which five persons, namely, the petitioner, respondent No. 4, respondent No. 5, Shri Vijay Singh and Shri Law Kumar Singh participated. Shri Law Kumar Singh was the highest bidder who quoted Rs. 91,500.00 and Rs. 3,50,000.00 . The second highest bidder was the petitioner who quoted Rs. 91,100.00 and Rs. 1,00,600.00 whereas respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 87,000.00 Rs. 96,000.00 and respondent No. 5 quoted Rs. 90,000.00 and Rs. 1,00000.00 . The highest bidder namely, Shri Law Kumar Singh refused to take the work. The petitioner being the second highest bidder, approached the Circle Officer for allotment of work to him. The respondents, therefore requested the petitioner to take settlement of the Sairat. In the meantime respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made objection and requested for cancellation of settlement. When the Sub -Divisional Officer, Hussainabad, after holding enquiry submitted a report before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the allegations made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are without any basis then respondent Nos. 4 and 5, suppressing all the facts, moved this Court by filling W.P.C. No. 5991/2004 stating that they were the second and third highest bidders. They made false statements in the said writ application that in the auction respondent No. 4 gave his auction of Rs. 1,25,000.00 . On the basis of the statement made in the writ petition this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the grievance of the petitioners (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and take decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner also. By memo No. 1892 dated 31.4.2004 the Deputy Commissioner called upon the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 fixing 3.1.200.5 as the date of hearing. Petitioner 'scase is that the said letter was received by him only on 4.1.2005 and the Deputy Commissioner, although handed over charge to the incumbent Deputy Commissioner on 4.1.2005, passed the impugned order cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 made allegation of offering Rs. 1,25,000.00 as the bid amount. This Court, by order dated 7.2.2005, issued notices to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and directed the respondents to maintain status quo. On 9.3.2005 this Court passed the following order : "Heard the counsel for the parties. In this case serious allegation has been made that although the petitioner was the second lowest bidder, the work was allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 after the first lowest bidder refused to execute the work. This Court, by order dated 7.2.2005, passed the following order. "Let the case be put up along with W.P.C. No. 5991 of 2004. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for which requisites etc. must be filed under registered cover with A/D within 11.2.2005. Put up this case on 18.2.2005 under the heading 'for orders. ' In the meantime, status quo, as existing today, shall be maintained. The counsel appearing for the State will file counter affidavit specifically stating as to who was the second lowest bidder, namely, the petitioner or respondent Nos. 4 and 5." Till date the respondents 4 and 5 have neither appeared nor filed counter affidavit and even the respondent -State has not filed its counter affidavit informing this Court as to who was the second lowest bidder. Learned State counsel submitted that the order of this Court was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau by Fax on 23.2.2005 but till date no one contacted him nor any instruction was sent. In such circumstances, issue notice to the Deputy .Commissioner, Palamau to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him for non -compliance of the order passed by this Court. He shall appear in person before this Court on 21.3.2005. In the meantime, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are restrained from executing the work. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned State Counsel for needful."
(3.) AGAIN the matter was placed on 21.3.2005 but respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not appear. This Court, therefore, directed issuance of fresh notices upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and further directed the State Counsel to produce the entire record of Settlement case along with dispatch register on the next date. It was only thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Circle Officer filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 5991/2004 the Deputy Commissioner fixed 3.1.2005 as the date of hearing but the petitioner did not appear. The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, passed order for re -auction of the Sairat. It is further stated that fresh auction was held on 29.1.2005 and all concerned including the petitioner were given notice.;