# Bhrigu Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 267
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-02-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78117 of 2005
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhrigu-nath-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41358
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226cancellation of bid-for fisheries Rightson ground of inadequate amount-bid
accepted-petitioner
deposited
1⁄2
amount-before cancellation notice or
show cause not required.

Held: Para 8
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned
order cancelling the auction does not
suffer from any error of law. In fact, the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram and
Shyam Company (Supra) held that the
Government was entitled to reject the
highest bid if it found that the price
offered was inadequate. The Supreme
Court, further held, that after rejecting
the offer, it was obligatory upon the
Government to act fairly, and that at any
rate, it should not act arbitrarily.
Case law discussed:
(1985) 3 SCC 267, 2004 (97) RD 675

## Text

1 All] Bhrigu Nath Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
267
power of the Tribunal by adjudicating a
dispute which power was not vested with
the government.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order, passed by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, declining to refer
the dispute cannot be sustained and is
quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The
matter is again remitted to the authority
concerned to exercise its powers and refer
the dispute for adjudication if the
industrial
dispute
exists
or
is
apprehended. The order shall be passed
by the authority within eight weeks from
the date of the production of a certified
copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78117 of 2005

Bhrigu Nath Pandey

...Petitioner

Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Salil Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.B. Pandey
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226cancellation of bid-for fisheries Rightson ground of inadequate amount-bid
accepted-petitioner
deposited
1⁄2
amount-before cancellation notice or
show cause not required.

Held: Para 8
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned
order cancelling the auction does not
suffer from any error of law. In fact, the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram and
Shyam Company (Supra) held that the
Government was entitled to reject the
highest bid if it found that the price
offered was inadequate. The Supreme
Court, further held, that after rejecting
the offer, it was obligatory upon the
Government to act fairly, and that at any
rate, it should not act arbitrarily.
Case law discussed:
(1985) 3 SCC 267, 2004 (97) RD 675

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Shri Salil Kumar Rai, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.

2. An advertisement dated 5th of
September, 2005 was issued by the
Deputy District Magistrate, Sahjanwa,
District Gorakhpur, in which it was
notified that an auction would be held on
14th of September, 2005 for grant of
fisheries' rights in various villages, which
included Village Bikora, Post Bikora,
Tehsil Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur
having an area of 0.713 hectares. It is
alleged that the petitioner participated in
the
said
auction
and
his
bid
of
Rs.12,500.00 was the highest, and, at the
fall of the hammer, deposited a sum of
Rs.3,125.00, being 1/4th of the bid
amount. Before the auction could be
finalised, the Deputy District Magistrate,
by an order dated 27th of September,
2005, cancelled the auction, on the ground
that the bid was inadequate, and directed
that a fresh auction should be held. The
petitioner, being aggrieved by the reauction and the rejection of his bid, has
filed the present writ petition.
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
3. At the time of the filing of the
writ petition, it was urged by the
petitioner that there was no irregularity in
the publication of the auction and that the
petitioner made an offer of Rs.75,000.00
instead of Rs.12,500.00. On that basis, the
Court, by an interim order dated 23rd of
December, 2005, stayed the re-auction till
the next date of listing, provided the
petitioner deposited a further sum of
Rs.19,000.00 before the Tehsildar to
prove his bona fides. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that pursuant
to the interim order, the petitioner had
deposited the amount of Rs.19,000.00.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that there was no
irregularity in the publication of the
auction, and consequently, the auction
could not have been cancelled on the sole
ground
that
the
consideration
was
inadequate. The learned counsel further
submitted,
that
assuming
without
admitting, that the auction could be
cancelled on account of inadequacy of the
consideration, in that event, before
cancelling, the petitioner should have
been given an opportunity to revise his
bid.
Further,
the
learned
counsel
submitted
that
the
impugned
order
cancelling the auction was violative of the
principles of natural justice, and that, an
opportunity of hearing was required to be
given, which was also contemplated and
provided under Rule 115-S of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952. In support of his submission,
the learned counsel has placed reliance
upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 267,
wherein the learned counsel placed
emphasis upon the observation made by
the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 and
18 of its judgment, which provided that an
opportunity ought to have been given to
the petitioner to improve his bid when his
bid was rejected on the ground that it did
not
represent
the
adequate
market
consideration.

5. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and having perused the
counter affidavit filed by the State, the
Court is of the opinion that the
submissions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is patently misconceived
and bereft of merit. The judgment cited by
the learned counsel is not applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of the
case. In Ram and Shyam Company
(supra), the Supreme Court found that the
petitioner's bid was the highest but was
rejected on the ground that another
competitor arbitrarily gave an enhanced
bid subsequently. It was, in that light, that
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
an
opportunity of hearing should have been
provided to the petitioner to enhance his
bid, but, this is not the case in the present
scenario.

6. In the present case, the bid has
been cancelled by the State authorities on
the ground that the bid was inadequate.
No doubt, detailed reasons have not been
given in the impugned order, but the
counter affidavit reveals the ground for
cancellation of the auction. The State has
come out with the stand that the High
Court had delivered a judgment in
Babban Vs. State of U.P. through the
Principal
Secretary,
Revenue
Department & Ors., decided on 6th
October, 2004, reported in 2004 (97) RD
675, in which the Court had directed that
the fisheries' lease in future should be
granted
at
the
minimum
rate
of
Rs.10,000.00 per hectare per year. This
1 All] Bhrigu Nath Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
269
judgment was delivered prior to the
advertisement issued in the present case.
Since the direction of the Court was
violated, the advertisement itself became
incorrect. The reasoning given by the
authority in the impugned order was
correct, namely, that the bid was
inadequate, though detailed reasons were
not given, but that became immaterial,
since a direction of the Court was not
followed by the authorities.

7. Admittedly, the area of the pond
is less than a hectare and a fisheries' right
for 10 years' was required to be auctioned.
Consequently, the bid given by the
petitioner to the tune of Rs.12,500.00 was
grossly inadequate.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order cancelling the auction
does not suffer from any error of law. In
fact, the Supreme Court in the case of
Ram and Shyam Company (Supra) held
that the Government was entitled to reject
the highest bid if it found that the price
offered was inadequate. The Supreme
Court, further held, that after rejecting the
offer,
it
was
obligatory
upon
the
Government to act fairly, and that at any
rate, it should not act arbitrarily.

9. In the present case, the authorities
have cancelled the auction on the ground
that the price bid was grossly inadequate
and has directed that a fresh auction
should
be
held.
No
illegality
or
arbitrariness has been committed by the
State authorities in directing re-auctioning
of the fisheries' right.

10. In so far as the provisions of
Rule 115-S of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules
is concerned, this Court finds that the
initiation of the auction though the
advertisement itself was incorrect and
against the directions of the High Court
given in the judgment of Babban (Supra).
Consequently, the stage of Rule 115-S
had not as yet started.

11. The learned counsel for the
petitioner in the end submitted that he was
willing to pay a price of Rs.75,000.00 for
the fisheries' rights and that his bona fides
has been tested since he has deposited
1/4th of the amount as per interim order
of the Court. In my view, the mere fact
that the petitioner has deposited some
amount pursuant to an interim order of the
Court only prima facie proves his bona
fides, but this, by itself, could not entitle
the petitioner to get the fisheries' right,
especially when other bidders are not
before the Court to match the price
offered by the petitioner. The law is very
clear, namely, that the fisheries' right has
to be settled by auction. An offer given by
the petitioner before the Court does not
become a public auction, especially when
other bidders are not before the Court.
The Court had entertained the writ
petition by directing the petitioner to
deposit the amount as an interim measure
to show his bona fides. By entertaining
the writ petition, the Court did not mean
that a fisheries' right would eventually be
granted. Now, the version of the State is
before the Court and, one finds the reason
for the cancellation of the bid which was
done in terms of the directions of the
Court in the case of Babban (supra).

12. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court does not find any error in the
impugned order. The writ petition fails
and is dismissed. It is however clarified
that the amount so deposited by the
petitioner pursuant to the fall of the
hammer and pursuant to the interim order
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
of the Court, shall be refunded to the
petitioner within four weeks from the date
of moving such an application along with
a certified copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. JAIN, J.

Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
No. 52691 of 2008

Kanak Khandelwal and another

 ...Petitioners

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Kumar Pandey
Sri J.K. Chakraverty
A.G.A.

Constitutions of India Art. 226-Habeas
Corpus Writ-Custody of minor child-by
grand father-minor living happily with
Nana Nani getting education in English
School-minor son the only eye witness of
the murder of his mother-Father already
in jail-welfare of minor parampuntconsideration-custody of such minor can
not be handed over to the grand father.

Held: Para 8

From the facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears that petitioner no. 1 is
the only witness of murder of his
mother, which is alleged to have been
committed by the father of petitioner no.
1. He has already deposed under section
164 Cr.P.C. against his father and on the
basis of his statement the father of
petitioner no. 1 has been detained in
custody. If the child is handed over to his
grand father i.e. the father of Ravi
Khandelwal, the possibility that the
evidence in the case shall be destroyed
cannot be over ruled. It has also born
out from the facts and circumstances of
the case that the child has not been
illegally detained and he is happily living
with his Nana and Nani. I do not find it
fit to hand over the custody of the child
to petitioner no. 2, the grand father of
petitioner no. 1.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.)

1. Petitioners Kanak Khandelwal
(minor) and Shyam Sundar Khandelwal
filed this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition for
issuance of a writ order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents to produce the corpus of
petitioner no. 1 Kanak Khandelwal who is
in illegal custody of respondent no. 2 to 7.

2. Present petition has been
preferred on the ground that the daughter
of Suresh Chand Khandelwal, respondent
no. 2 was married with Ravi Khandelwal
son of petitioner no. 2 on 4.3.03. After the
marriage Ravi Khandelwal and daughter
of Suresh Chand Khandelwal lived
happily and petitioner no. 1 Kanak
Khandelwal was born out of the wedlock
on 2.3.2004. Petitioner no. 2 admitted
petitioner no. 1 in Euro Kids Play School
Radhapuram,
National
Highway
2,
Mathura, Kanak is still studying. It is
alleged that in the night of 20/21-6-2008
some unknown persons had committed
murder of the mother petitioner no. 1
Kanak. Ravi Khandel, the father of
petitioner no. 1, lodged a F.I.R. at P.S.
Highway, District Mathura about the
occurrence, which was registered as case
crime no. 268 of 2008 against unknown
persons. After the occurrence, the Media
had taken interview of respondent no. 2 to
7, who stated before the Media that they