AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, and O.P Garg, JJ.—Heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This case pertains to an auction for collection of tolltax on a bridge situated at
Ram Ganga river District Farrukhabad. The terms of the auction notice dated 28991 annexure1 to the writ petition states that the auction will be for three years. Surprisingly enough the contract which was subsequently signed with the petitioners was for five years. In our opinion, the contract has to be in conformity with the auction notice as held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC1628. Hence, we hold that the contract dated 71192 shall be treated for only three years and not for five years. It may be mentioned that the auction bid, copy of which is annexure CA1 also mentioned the terms of the auction as three years and that was signed by the petitioners. AnnexureCA9 which is a copy of the application of the petitioners before the SubRegistrar of Stamps Farrukhabad, where also the petitioners have mentioned the term of the auction as three years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that once a contract has been signed it has to be honoured. We are of the opinion that no contract of an auction can violatie the terms of the auction otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will follow that even if the auction notice mentioned the period of contract as three years, subsequently the petitioners can get a contract for 50 years. This will be wholly illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there is no force in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Petition dismissed.