Raj Kumar Bind vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12835 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2055 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Bind
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent Gram Sabha.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that pursuant to the previous order the respondent 2 is present in Court in order to explain the factual inconsistencies noticed in the affidavits filed earlier.

3. Indulgence is sought to file a fresh affidavit along with an application in order to explain the stand of the State respondents with regard to the settlement of the fishery lease in favour of the petitioner.

4. Affidavit, along with application, filed in court, is taken on record.

5. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.3/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Mirzapur, to complete the formalities for grant of fishery lease to the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to exercise fishing rights in respect of pond bearing Gata No. 970 area 0.2400 hectare, situate in Village- Gonaura, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Mirzapur.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has primarily sought to contend that the petitioner being the sole bidder in the auction held by the State respondents and having deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, would acquire a right for settlement of fishery lease in his favour.

7. Learned counsel has also contended that the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit filed earlier that the pond in question was proposed for the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' could not be accepted for the reason that for the purposes of the said scheme the area of the pond was required to be at least of one acre and the pond in question is having a much lesser area.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn attention to the Government Order dated 27.04.2022, a copy of which has been appended along with the affidavit filed today, to point out that the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' was launched as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years of independence of the country. It is pointed out that as per directions issued by the Government, 'Amrit Sarovars' are to be developed in each district and the responsibility of maintaining them, would be of the concerned Gram Panchayats.

9. It is pointed out that in furtherance of the aforestated Government Order, a D.O. letter dated 12.05.2022, was issued by the Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh containing the guidelines in regard to the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' which provide that for the purpose of the scheme, ponds having in a minimum area of one acre (0.4 hectares), would be considered; however, in case a pond of the required area is not available then ponds of lesser area may also be utilised for the purpose after undertaking their rejuvenation and desilting.

10. As regards the factual aspects of the case, it is submitted that the auction proceedings were initiated in terms of a public notice dated 02.07.2022. Soon thereafter, the Gram Sabha of the concerned village passed a resolution on 25.07.2022, in terms of which the pond in question along with two other ponds, were proposed for 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana'. The officials of the Revenue Department being unaware of the aforesaid proposal held the auction on 25.07.2022 and one-fourth of the bid amount was deposited.

11. It is pointed out that the Gram Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat submitted an application dated 25.07.2022 annexing a copy of the proposal dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Gram Panchayat which was with regard to the proposal for allocating the pond for the purposes of the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme'.

12. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that a physical inspection was carried out by the Area Lekhpal and a report dated 26.08.2022 was submitted with the approval of the Revenue Inspector before the Tehsildar- Mirzapur. On 23.09.2022, it was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and an order was passed to the effect that since the pond in question was being proposed for the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme', the auction proceedings were not being approved.

13. It is submitted that the respondent authorities in all fairness have sent notices dated 14.10.2022 and 29.10.2022, directing the petitioner to seek refund of the amount deposited for the auction.

14. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' has been launched on the occasion of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' and in terms thereof the pond in question has been chosen in larger public interest and the work that is proposed to be carried out would be in the interest of the members of the entire village community.

15. As regards the contention of the petitioner with regard to infringement of any rights merely because the petitioner has participated in the auction and deposited the one-fourth of the bid amount, it has been submitted that mere participation in the auction and being the sole or highest bidder, does not create any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Babloo vs. State of U.P. and others1.

16. Rival submissions now fall for consideration.

17. The factual aspects of the case with regard to the pond in question having been notified for auction for the purposes of grant of fishery lease and the petitioner having participated and being the sole bidder and having also deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, are not disputed.

18. The only grievance which is sought to be raised is with regard to the fact that once the petitioner was successful in the auction being the sole bidder and had deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, his rights stood crystallized, and it was not open to the respondent-authorities to have declined to grant approval to the auction proceedings.

19. The affidavit filed in court today by the respondent no. 2 contains reference to the 'Mission Amrit Sarovar' launched by the Government of India at the national level, aimed at developing and rejuvenating 75 water bodies in each district of the country as part of the celebration of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years of independence of the country.

20. Attention of the court has been drawn to the fact that development of 'Amrit Sarovars' would be an apt symbol of constructive action adopted by the country on the occasion of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' and would create sustainable and long term productive assets beneficial to both the sentient beings and the environment. It is also pointed out that 'Amrit Sarovars' would play an important role in increasing the availability of water both on surface and underground.

21. The Government Order which has been placed on record contains reference to the guidelines issued by the Government of India wherein as per the implementation strategy of the scheme, an 'Amrit Sarovar' is to be constructed on at least one acre of land with water holding capacity of about 10,000 cubic metres. However, it has been provided that if any district is unable to create as many new 'Amrit Sarovars', then the district may take up rejuvenation of the existing structures for restoring their ecological and productive utility. Under the scheme, at least 75 'Amrit Sarovars' in every district are proposed to be taken up for construction or rejuvenation.

22. The objective of the scheme, as reflected from the Government Order and the guidelines which have been placed on record, are indicative of the importance of the scheme and in particular, the fact that the development of 'Amrit Sarovars' are envisaged with the aim of increasing the availability of water to create sustainable and long term productive assets.

23. The right of the highest bidder at public auctions has been subject matter of consideration in a number of cases and it has been consistently held that the authority concerned is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid, which is subject to the conditions in terms of which the public auction has been held.

24. The right of the highest bidder to have the auction concluded in his favour came up for consideration in Rajasthan Housing Board and another Vs. G.S.Investments and another2 and it was held that the highest bidder did not acquire any vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour as the same was subject to the conditions in terms of which the auction proceedings had been held. The observations made in the judgment are being extracted below :-

"8. The auction notice dated 3.2.2002 contained a condition to the effect that the Chairman of the Housing Board shall have the final authority regarding acceptance of the bid. The second auction notice issued on 19.2.2002 mentioned that the conditions of the auction will be same as mentioned in the earlier auction notice. In view of this condition in auction notice it is obvious that a person who had made the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any right to have the auction concluded in his favour until the Chairman of the Housing Board had passed an order to that effect. Of course the Chairman of the Housing Board could not exercise his power in an arbitrary manner but so long as an order regarding final acceptance of the bid had not been passed by the Chairman, the highest bidder acquired no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the auction proceedings could always be cancelled..."

25. In taking the aforesaid view, the decision in Laxmikant v. Satyawan3 was taken note of, wherein, referring to earlier decisions in Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa4, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal5, Union of India v. Mis. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram6 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh7; it had been stated as follows :-

"4...From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra, etc. v. State of Orissa AIR 1971 SC 733, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 3 SCR 784, Union of India v. Mis. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram (1970) 2 SCR 594 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh AIR 1982 SC 1234. It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held."

26. A similar view was taken in the judgment in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies8 and it was laid down as a legal principle that the bidder who has participated in the tender process has no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids. The relevant portion of the judgment is being extracted below :-

"27. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.

28. It is so well-settled in law and needs no restatement at our hands that disposal of the public property by the State or its instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons to participate in the process.

29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favoritism."

27. The aforesaid legal position with regard to the right of a successful bidder at a public auction has been considered in a recent decision of this Court in Babloo (supra).

28. The legal position that a successful bidder in a public auction does not acquire any vested rights to have the auction concluded in his favour and the authority concerned is not under all circumstances bound to accept the highest tender or bid, is fairly well-settled. It is open to to the authority, if there exist good sufficient reasons, not to conclude the auction proceedings in favour of the successful bidder.

29. In the instant case, the reasons which have been put forward by the respondent-authorities, not to conclude the auction proceedings being in larger public interest with a view to create sustainable and long term productive assets by increasing the availability of water which is one of the most valuable natural resources, cannot be held to be an insufficient reason which had persuaded the respondent-authorities not to conclude the auction proceedings in favour of the petitioner.

30. The concept of a welfare State is a facet of Article 38 of the Constitution of India and it is the objective of the State to see that the welfare of the people is appositely promoted. Salus populi est suprema lex is a maxim found in Cicero's De Legibus9, and it means the welfare of the public shall be the supreme law and in case of any conflict, an individual interest must yield to the community interest. The State and its instrumentalties must serve the society as a whole keeping the public interest as primary and any other interest as secondary. The greatest good of the greatest number and the benefit and happiness of all is to be avowed is object of a democratic polity and the authorities of the State are to act in furtherance of the same.

31. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the aforestated factual and legal position.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to dispute that the development of the pond in question which is proposed as part of a scheme of national interest would be in the larger public good.

33. Accordingly, learned counsel states that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the matter any further.

34. It would be open to the petitioner to seek refund of the bid amount by responding to the notices issued earlier in regard to the same.

35. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 26.4.2023

Mohini

[Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]