NANDJI SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner making a grievance that the Municipal Bus Stand at Sasaram has been settled with respondent No. 3 for collection of toll from the buses standing at the said Bus Stand by private negotiation instead of holding an auction. From the statement made in the writ application and documents annexed thereto, it appears that an auction was held for the settlement of the said Bus Stand in the year 1984 for the period commencing from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985. Respondent No. 3 being the highest bidder, settlement was made in his favour.

(2.) For the year 1985 -86 no auction was held and the settlement was made with respondent No. 3 on 4.2.1985. This is being challenged on behalf of the petitioner saying that the method adopted for the settlement is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, no opportunity was given to others who could have taken settlement at a much higher rate.

(3.) Respondent No. 4, Municipality, Sasaram, as well as respondent No. 3, have entered appearance at the stage of admission itself and. counter -affidavits have been filed on their behalf. It is not in dispute that the settlement has been made in favour of respondent No. 3 without any public auction. However the stand of respondent No. 4, Municipality, appears, to be that as respondent No. 3 suffered loss during the election, the settlement was made in his favour on the same terms and conditions for another year to compensate the loss. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that there being no statutory provision prescribing the mode of settlement of the Bus Stand, it was opened to the Municipality to make settlement with respondent No. 3 taking all facts and circumstances into consideration. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept this contention. In the several judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been pointed out that even in absence of a statutory provision prescribing the mode of settlement of properties belonging to the State including the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the settlement must conform to the requirement of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Reference, in this, connection, may be made to one such judgment in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v/s. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors. reported in : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628. As such, it is difficult to uphold the method of settlement adopted by the Municipality. It cannot be disputed that Municipality shall be deemed to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and, as such while making settlement for collection of toll, it has to adopt the norms and procedure as, laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we allow this writ application and direct the Sasaram Municipality, respondent No. 4, that an auction be held as early as possible preferably within three weeks from today.