Rani Banra and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Seeking quashing of order dated 31.07.2014 whereby the bandobasti in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled, the present writ petition has been filed.

The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement dated 24.05.2014, in the Aam Sabha held on 02.06.2014 a decision was taken to select "Chaynit Samuh" (group) of 11 members for bandobasti of Mangla Haat, Chaibasa. Subsequently, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee issued authorization letter in favour of the petitioners for collection of ground rent and market fee in Mangla Haat for the financial year 2014-15. The minimum guarantee amount for ground rent was fixed at Rs. 9,58,333.00/- and market fee at Rs. 1,29,470.00/- for 10 months. An agreement dated 06.06.2014 was also executed between the petitioners and the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chaibasa. The petitioners thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a duly signed money receipt dated 06.06.2014 was also issued in their favour. However, vide letter dated 31.07.2014 the president of the group namely, Sideswar Banra was communicated decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, the bandobasti for Mangla Haat, Chaibasa has been cancelled on 01.08.2014.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 - Agriculture Produce Market Committee stating that the settlement in favour of the Group of Munda of Tonto has been cancelled in compliance of order dated 31.07.2014. The respondent No. 4 has taken a stand justifying the cancellation of settlement and issuance of fresh notice for resettlement.

A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stating that one Manoranjan Pathak of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chaibasa made serious allegations against the first elected group and recommended for settlement of Mangla Haat in favour of the present group headed by one Shidheshwar Banra. Complaints were received in respect of the above settlement and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner forwarded the same to the respondent No. 3. An enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 3 and it was found that the office bearers of the selected group of Munda of Tonto are not residents of village Tonto. It is also stated that the respondent No. 3 found that fraud has been played in settlement of Mangla Haat and therefore, the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 29.07.2003 cancelled the aforesaid settlement of Mangla Haat. In view of the illegality committed by respondent No. 4, the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner who ordered to issue show-cause notice to the respondent No. 4. In pursuance of fresh advertisement issued on 02.08.2014 a fresh "Chaynit Samuh" has been constituted and Mangla Haat has been settled in their favour with effect from 01.08.2014. In this connection authority letter dated 05.08.2014 has been issued and an agreement has been executed on the same day.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the cancellation of Haat bandobasti suffers from serious infirmity in law in as much as, a concluded contract has been terminated without issuing show-cause notice. It is further submitted that, in the counter-affidavit a plea has been taken that the office bearers of the "Chaynit Samuh" are not the residents of village Tonto and as such the cancellation of the settlement on such ground would entail serious consequences because the petitioners would be debarred from participating in future auction.

As against the above, Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Agriculture Produce Market Committee refers to Section 33 J of the Market Act and Clause 21 of the agreement dated 06.06.2014 and submits that, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that, in view of fresh settlement made in favour of another "Chaynit Samuh", the present writ petition has become infructuous.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it appears that on the complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer-respondent No. 3 and a report was prepared. The respondent No. 3 has cancelled the settlement of Mangla Haat made in favour of the petitioners however, it does not appear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that a copy of the report was given to the petitioners. If the finding allegedly recorded in the report of respondent No. 3 is accepted, it would have serious consequences to the petitioners particularly, office bearers of the "Chaynit Samuh" in as much as, their place of residence has been doubted in the said report. I am of the opinion that before taking any action on the basis of the report prepared by the respondent No. 3, a show-cause notice was required to be issued. The Haat bandobasti for Mangla Haat settled in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioners. However, the settlement in favour of the petitioners was only till March, 2015 and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the fresh settlement made pursuant to advertisement dated 01.08.2014. From the materials brought on record it does not appear that before concluding that the office bearer of the "Chaynit Samuh" are not the residents of village Tonto, a show-cause notice was issued to them or an opportunity was granted to them to produce evidence establishing that they are the residents of village Tonto. Since the dispute with respect to place of residence of the office bearers of the "Chaynit Samuh" is likely to effect them seriously, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioners would not be relied upon against them, in future.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 193 of 2015 is also dismissed.