Mandar Madhusudan Bahudhandhi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State

and the respondent no. 8, who has suo motu appeared.

The petitioners have moved the Court challenging the

order dated 19.12.2016 issued by the respondent authorities by which

the settlement of the Bounsi Mela for 2016-17 has been made in

favour of the respondent no. 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner no. 1, being a registered Co-operative Society is entitled to

preference in the settlement of the Bounsi Mela in terms of the

Government policy. He submitted that the policy envisaged that the

settlement would be made with a Co-operative Society, which fulfills

other criteria, on reserved deposit. It was submitted that the Society

applied for settlement before the Competent Authority in terms of the

Advertisement enclosing all the documents required including the

''No Dues Certificate'' from the Competent Authority as well as

recommendation of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

Learned counsel submitted that in the auction held, there were three

private persons and the petitioner no. 1 was the only Co-operative

Society and in that view of the matter, there ought not to have been

any auction held. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the

grounds taken for not making settlement with the petitioners is that

they did not produce the ''No Dues Certificate'' from the Competent

Authority and also the audit report and cash register of the society

which is erroneous since the ''No Dues Certificate'' having been

granted by the Circle Officer, is a valid document for such transaction

and further the recommendation of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative

Societies itself implies that the petitioners have a clear audit report

and only upon the cash register having been produced, and verified,

the Joint Registrar has made such recommendation. Learned counsel

further submitted that as per the Government policy even the fixation

of reserved deposit is on the basis of open bid held every three years

to determine the amount and in the present case, the same having

been done in the year 2014-15, for the present transaction, the amount

which was fixed for the previous year would be applicable and the

petitioners having already deposited the amount, the authorities were

bound to make the settlement in their favour.

Learned counsel for the State and the private

respondents submitted that the stand of the petitioners is

misconceived for the reason that as per the Government circulars, the

''No Dues Certificate'' has to be from the Competent Authority which

in the present case is not the Circle Officer and would be the

Additional District Magistrate, Revenue of the District since the

amount of settlement is more than Rs. 25,000/-. It was further

submitted that the settlement authorities are also required to

independently verify and go through the audit report with regard to

the Society and only recommendation by the Joint Registrar does not

fulfill the requirement in law. They have further submitted that in any

view of the matter, the amount relating to public revenue, the fact that

the settlement claimed by the petitioners is for Rs. 3,32,925/-

whereas in the auction bid, the amount has gone to Rs. 19,30,000/-,

this Court would not interfere in the matter.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 submitted

that the reserved deposit had not been fixed on the basis of open bid

for more than three years, as was required under law, and thus, as of

now, the amount of reserved deposit cannot be less than Rs.

19,30,000/-, and thus, in any view of the matter, the settlement with

the petitioners cannot be for less than Rs. 19,30,000/-, once in an

open bid, such amount has come, moreso, as it relates to public

revenue and further, when a private party has bid for such amount, it

can be safely presumed that the return is much more and, thus, there

cannot be any loss to the petitioner Society.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the Competent Authority for giving the ''No Dues

Certificate'' has not been defined and further with regard to the

recommendation also, the Authority not being defined, they had

submitted the required papers as per the past practice and procedure.

Having considered the rival contentions, this Court

can only observe that if there is a policy of the State Government, the

District Authorities, who are also the Authorities for the purposes of

making settlement of Bounsi Mela are bound to strictly adhere to

such policy. The said policies cannot be interfered with and have

also not been challenged in the present proceeding, but it is obvious

that mere financial aspect is not the sole criteria for such policy.

Be that as it may, the writ petition stands disposed

off with a direction to the Collector, Banka to decide the matter

afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing, both to the petitioners

as well as to the respondent no. 8. The parties shall appear before

him on 16th January, 2017 at 11.00 A.M. in his Chamber, along with

a copy of this order. The Collector shall pass orders within one week

thereafter, after hearing all the parties concerned. In case, the

settlement in favour of the respondent no. 8 is upheld, the petition

filed by him for permission to hold theater and cinema may also be

considered.

It goes without saying that if the settlement in favour

of the respondent no. 8 is interfered with, the amount of money

deposited by him shall be returned to him after proportional

adjustment.

It is made clear that though the order impugned has

not been quashed but the same shall ultimately abide by the fresh

decision taken by the Collector, Banka. This Court has also not

expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter, which

shall be decided by the Collector, Banka, in accordance with law,

after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter.