Maonoranjan Mandal & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

I.A. No. 3938 of 2018 is filed to amend the prayer portion at paragraph 1 of the Writ petition due to the subsequent developments as mentioned at para 1(iv)

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3938 of 2018 is hereby allowed, amending the prayer portion. The reliefs mentioned in paragraph No. 4(i) thereof would form part of the Writ petition.

The petitioners have filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper on 18.01.2017, 31.01.2017 and 23.02.2017 for settlement of ten shops constructed under the Swarn Jayanti Swarozgar Yojna at Kalasan Bazar, Chausa, District Madhepura. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners participated in the tender after depositing the prescribed 10% of security amount against the reserved amount of Rs.50,000/- per shop. The petitioners were declared the highest bidders and consequently deposited the bid amount, registration amount and stamp charges for allotment of shops in their favour. Despite of fulfillment of all the conditions, the agreement was not executed in their favour and the shops were subsequently allotted to private respondents, who had not participated in the tender, without issuing any fresh notice or adopting the due process of law. During pendency of the Writ petition, allotments which were made in favour of the petitioners got cancelled by orders dated 23.06.2017, without giving them any notice or opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, having been declared the highest bidders and having deposited the requisite amounts, acquired a legitimate claim for allotment of the shops. The subsequent allotment of the same shops to private respondents, who had not participated in the tender, as well as cancellation of the petitioners’ allotments without any notice or hearing, is highly arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the impugned action has been taken without following the terms of the tender and the due process of law.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Zila Parishad. The Learned counsel for the respondent Zila Parishad submits that under the applicable guidelines, 70% of the shops in the haat are to be allotted to Swarozgaris, while up to 30% may be allotted to other persons on payment of suitable charges, and such allotment is not permanent in nature. It is further submitted that the settlement was subject to the right of the Zila Parishad to cancel the allotment. Due to technical reasons and protest by local people, the allotments made in favour of the petitioners were cancelled vide letters dated 23.06.2017 and the amounts deposited by them were directed to be refunded. The allotment of shops to the private respondents was thus in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines. The Learned counsel for respondent therefore, submits that the petitioners had no vested right to claim allotment of the shops and the Writ petition is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the private respondent/respondent Nos.6 to 11. The Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that out of the ten shops, seven shops falling under the Rural Development Department were to be allotted to the members of Jivika groups, and the private respondents were allotted the said shops on the basis of the recommendation of the concerned Jivika group in view of the meeting held under the chairmanship of the BDO, Chausa. The allotment was thereafter communicated through the respective allotment letters and the procedure was duly reported to the competent authorities.

It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the private respondents that the allotment was not made pursuant to any fresh tender, as the seven shops were governed by the scheme and were to be allotted to eligible members of Jivika groups. The allotment procedure was also considered by the authorities under the Bihar Public Grievances Redressal Rules, 2015, and no interference was found warranted. Learned counsel for the private respondents further submits that petitioner no.2, herself was one of the beneficiaries and had been allotted shop no.2 pursuant to her application and recommendation. The petitioners have suppressed this material fact and have approached this Court with unclean hands and the Writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

A rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the private respondents is filed on behalf of the petitioner.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply to the counter affidvit, submits that the advertisement did not disclose that the shops were to be allotted under the alleged 30:70 scheme or that seven shops were reserved for members of Jivika groups. The subsequent allotment of seven shops on the basis of a meeting dated 24.03.2017 was therefore contrary to the terms of the advertisement and was made without any general notice, prescribed criteria or transparent selection process.

It is further submitted that the petitioners themselves are members of Jivika groups and were not informed about the meeting or the proposed allotment, despite having been successful bidders in the tender. The orders passed by the authorities under the public grievance proceedings also failed to consider this material fact and were passed without giving the petitioners adequate opportunity to produce the relevant documents. As regards the alleged allotment of shop no.2 to petitioner no.2, it is submitted that no allotment letter or information in this regard was ever supplied to her. Learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, submits that the allotments made in favour of the private respondents were arbitrary and without following a fair and transparent procedure.

Having considered the rival submissions and the materials available on record, this Court finds that the advertisement itself reserved the right of the competent authority to cancel the settlement. The allotment was also subject to the applicable scheme and guidelines. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents that petitioner no. 2 herself was allotted shop no. 2 under the said process. Thus, the allegation that the petitioners were wholly excluded from the allotment process is not borne out from the record.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the allotment process or the impugned orders. The Writ petition is, accordingly, devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.