# Raj Kumar Bind v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 656
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-26
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2055 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-bind-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50577
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Revenue Law - Amrit Sarovar Scheme -
Fishery lease - Auction - Highest bidder
deposited one-fourth of bid amount -
Vested right, how far being acquired -
Held, a successful bidder in a public
auction does not acquire any vested rights
to have the auction concluded in his
favour - It is open to to the authority, if
there exist good sufficient reasons, not to
conclude
the
auction
proceedings
in
favour of the successful bidder. (Para 28)

B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 38
- Object - Concept of welfare St. - St.'s
liability to achieve it - Held, the concept of
welfare St. is a facet of Article 38 of the
Constitution and it is the objective of the
St. to see that the welfare of the people is
appositely promoted - The greatest good
of the greatest number and the benefit
and happiness of all is to be avowed is
object of a democratic polity and the
authorities of the St. are to act in
furtherance of the same. (Para 30)

C. Maxim - Salus populi est suprema lex -
Meaning - The welfare of the public shall
be the supreme law. (Para 30)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consortium = 15000 +
15000 + 40,000 x 2
TOTAL COMPENSATION
(₹12,96,000 + ₹1,10,000)
₹14,06,000/-

Total Compensation Payable (in words)
= Rupees Fourteen Lacs Six
Thousand only

35. In the result, this appeal stands
allowed in part. The impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded is enhanced to
₹14,06,000/-. The aforesaid sum of money
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of institution of
the claim petition, until realization. Any
sum of money already deposited with the
Tribunal by the Insurer, pursuant to the
impugned award, shall be adjusted against
the award. The other directions of the
Tribunal in the award shall remain intact.

36. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 656
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 2055 of 2023

Raj Kumar Bind ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Singh
A. Revenue Law - Amrit Sarovar Scheme -
Fishery lease - Auction - Highest bidder
deposited one-fourth of bid amount -
Vested right, how far being acquired -
Held, a successful bidder in a public
auction does not acquire any vested rights
to have the auction concluded in his
favour - It is open to to the authority, if
there exist good sufficient reasons, not to
conclude
the
auction
proceedings
in
favour of the successful bidder. (Para 28)

B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 38
- Object - Concept of welfare St. - St.'s
liability to achieve it - Held, the concept of
welfare St. is a facet of Article 38 of the
Constitution and it is the objective of the
St. to see that the welfare of the people is
appositely promoted - The greatest good
of the greatest number and the benefit
and happiness of all is to be avowed is
object of a democratic polity and the
authorities of the St. are to act in
furtherance of the same. (Para 30)

C. Maxim - Salus populi est suprema lex -
Meaning - The welfare of the public shall
be the supreme law. (Para 30)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Babloo Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2020 (10) ADJ
550

2.
Rajasthan Housing Board
& anr. Vs
G.S.Investments and another; (2007) 1 SCC 477

3. Laxmikant Vs Satyawan; (1996) 4 SCC 208

4. Trilochan Mishra Vs St. of Orissa; AIR 1971
SC 733

5. St. of Orissa Vs Harinarayan Jaiswal; (1972) 3
SCR 784

6. Union of India Vs Mis. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram;
(1970) 2 SCR 594

7. St. of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs Vijay
Bahadur Singh; AIR 1982 SC 1234
7 All. Raj Kumar Bind Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
657
8. Meerut Development Authority Vs Association
of Management Studies; (2009) 6 SCC 171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Sri Abhishek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
for the State respondents and Sri Pradeep
Singh, learned counsel representing the
respondent Gram Sabha.

2. Learned Additional Advocate
General points out that pursuant to the
previous order the respondent 2 is present
in Court in order to explain the factual
inconsistencies noticed in the affidavits
filed earlier.

3. Indulgence is sought to file a fresh
affidavit along with an application in order
to
explain
the
stand
of
the
State
respondents with regard to the settlement of
the fishery lease in favour of the petitioner.

4. Affidavit, along with application,
filed in court, is taken on record.

5. The present petition has been filed
seeking a direction to the respondent no.3/
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Sadar,
District-
Mirzapur,
to
complete
the
formalities for grant of fishery lease to the
petitioner and to allow the petitioner to
exercise fishing rights in respect of pond
bearing Gata No. 970 area 0.2400 hectare,
situate in Village- Gonaura, Tehsil- Sadar,
District- Mirzapur.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has
primarily sought to contend that the
petitioner being the sole bidder in the
auction held by the State respondents and
having deposited one-fourth of the bid
amount,
would
acquire
a
right
for
settlement of fishery lease in his favour.

7. Learned counsel has also contended
that the stand taken by the respondent
authorities in the affidavit filed earlier that
the pond in question was proposed for the
'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' could not be
accepted for the reason that for the
purposes of the said scheme the area of the
pond was required to be at least of one acre
and the pond in question is having a much
lesser area.

8. Learned Additional Advocate
General has drawn attention to the
Government Order dated 27.04.2022, a
copy of which has been appended along
with the affidavit filed today, to point out
that the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' was
launched as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka
Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75 years
of independence of the country. It is
pointed out that as per directions issued by
the Government, 'Amrit Sarovars' are to be
developed
in
each
district
and
the
responsibility of maintaining them, would
be of the concerned Gram Panchayats.

9. It is pointed out that in furtherance
of the aforestated Government Order, a
D.O. letter dated 12.05.2022, was issued by
the Commissioner, Rural Development,
Uttar Pradesh containing the guidelines in
regard to the 'Amrit Sarovar Scheme' which
provide that for the purpose of the scheme,
ponds having in a minimum area of one
acre (0.4 hectares), would be considered;
however, in case a pond of the required
area is not available then ponds of lesser
area may also be utilised for the purpose
after undertaking their rejuvenation and
desilting.
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. As regards the factual aspects of
the case, it is submitted that the auction
proceedings were initiated in terms of a
public notice dated 02.07.2022. Soon
thereafter,
the
Gram
Sabha
of
the
concerned village passed a resolution on
25.07.2022, in terms of which the pond in
question along with two other ponds, were
proposed for 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana'. The
officials of the Revenue Department being
unaware of the aforesaid proposal held the
auction on 25.07.2022 and one-fourth of
the bid amount was deposited.

11. It is pointed out that the Gram
Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat
submitted an application dated 25.07.2022
annexing a copy of the proposal dated
27.07.2022 passed by the Gram Panchayat
which was with regard to the proposal for
allocating the pond for the purposes of the
'Amrit Sarovar Scheme'.

12. Attention of the Court has also
been drawn to the fact that a physical
inspection was carried out by the Area
Lekhpal and a report dated 26.08.2022 was
submitted with the approval of the Revenue
Inspector before the Tehsildar- Mirzapur.
On 23.09.2022, it was forwarded to the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and an order
was passed to the effect that since the pond
in question was being proposed for the
'Amrit Sarovar Scheme', the
auction
proceedings were not being approved.

13 . It is submitted that the respondent
authorities in all fairness have sent notices
dated 14.10.2022 and 29.10.2022, directing
the petitioner to seek refund of the amount
deposited for the auction.

14 . Learned Additional Advocate
General points out that the 'Amrit Sarovar
Scheme' has been launched on the occasion
of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' and in terms
thereof the pond in question has been
chosen in larger public interest and the
work that is proposed to be carried out
would be in the interest of the members of
the entire village community.

15. As regards the contention of the
petitioner with regard to infringement of
any rights merely because the petitioner has
participated in the auction and deposited
the one-fourth of the bid amount, it has
been submitted that mere participation in
the auction and being the sole or highest
bidder, does not create any indefeasible
right in favour of the petitioner. In this
regard, reliance has been placed on a
decision of this Court in Babloo vs. State of
U.P. and others1.

16. Rival submissions now fall for
consideration.

17. The factual aspects of the case
with regard to the pond in question having
been notified for auction for the purposes
of grant of fishery lease and the petitioner
having participated and being the sole
bidder and having also deposited onefourth of the bid amount, are not disputed.

18. The only grievance which is
sought to be raised is with regard to the fact
that once the petitioner was successful in
the auction being the sole bidder and had
deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, his
rights stood crystallized, and it was not
open to the respondent-authorities to have
declined to grant approval to the auction
proceedings.

19. The affidavit filed in court today
by the respondent no. 2 contains reference
to the 'Mission Amrit Sarovar' launched by
the Government of India at the national
7 All. Raj Kumar Bind Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
659
level, aimed at developing and rejuvenating
75 water bodies in each district of the
country as part of the celebration of 'Azadi
Ka Amrit Mahotsav' to commemorate 75
years of independence of the country.

20. Attention of the court has been
drawn to the fact that development of
'Amrit Sarovars' would be an apt symbol of
constructive action adopted by the country
on the occasion of 'Azadi Ka Amrit
Mahotsav' and would create sustainable and
long term productive assets beneficial to
both
the
sentient
beings
and
the
environment. It is also pointed out that
'Amrit Sarovars' would play an important
role in increasing the availability of water
both on surface and underground.

21. The Government Order which has
been placed on record contains reference to
the guidelines issued by the Government of
India wherein as per the implementation
strategy of the scheme, an 'Amrit Sarovar'
is to be constructed on at least one acre of
land with water holding capacity of about
10,000 cubic metres. However, it has been
provided that if any district is unable to
create as many new 'Amrit Sarovars', then
the district may take up rejuvenation of the
existing structures for restoring their
ecological and productive utility. Under the
scheme, at least 75 'Amrit Sarovars' in
every district are proposed to be taken up
for construction or rejuvenation.

22. The objective of the scheme, as
reflected from the Government Order and
the guidelines which have been placed on
record, are indicative of the importance of
the scheme and in particular, the fact that
the development of 'Amrit Sarovars' are
envisaged with the aim of increasing the
availability of water to create sustainable
and long term productive assets.

23. The right of the highest bidder at
public auctions has been subject matter of
consideration in a number of cases and it has
been consistently held that the authority
concerned is not bound to accept the highest
tender or bid, which is subject to the conditions
in terms of which the public auction has been
held.

24. The right of the highest bidder to have
the auction concluded in his favour came up for
consideration in Rajasthan Housing Board
and
another
Vs.
G.S.Investments
and
another2 and it was held that the highest bidder
did not acquire any vested right to have the
auction concluded in his favour as the same was
subject to the conditions in terms of which the
auction proceedings had been held. The
observations made in the judgment are being
extracted below :-

"8. The auction notice dated 3.2.2002
contained a condition to the effect that the
Chairman of the Housing Board shall have the
final authority regarding acceptance of the bid.
The second auction notice issued on 19.2.2002
mentioned that the conditions of the auction
will be same as mentioned in the earlier auction
notice. In view of this condition in auction
notice it is obvious that a person who had made
the highest bid in the auction did not acquire
any right to have the auction concluded in his
favour until the Chairman of the Housing Board
had passed an order to that effect. Of course the
Chairman of the Housing Board could not
exercise his power in an arbitrary manner but so
long as an order regarding final acceptance of
the bid had not been passed by the Chairman,
the highest bidder acquired no vested right to
have the auction concluded in his favour and
the auction proceedings could always be
cancelled..."

25. In taking the aforesaid view, the
decision in Laxmikant v. Satyawan3 was taken
note of, wherein, referring to earlier decisions in
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa4, State of
Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal5, Union of
India v. Mis. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram6 and
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Vijay
Bahadur Singh7; it had been stated as follows
:-

"4...From a bare reference to the
aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that
even if the public auction had been completed and
the respondent was the highest bidder, no right
had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had
been issued to him. The conditions of the auction
clearly conceived and contemplated that the
acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of
Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the
right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This
Court has examined the right of the highest bidder
at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan
Mishra, etc. v. State of Orissa AIR 1971 SC 733,
State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 3
SCR 784, Union of India v. Mis. Bhim Sen
Walaiti Ram (1970) 2 SCR 594 and State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh AIR
1982 SC 1234. It has been repeatedly pointed out
that State or the authority which can be held to be
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution is not bound to accept the highest
tender or bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is
subject to the conditions of holding the public
auction and the right of the highest bidder has to
be examined in context with the different
conditions under which such auction has been
held. In the present case no right had accrued to
the respondent either on the basis of the statutory
provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions
of the sale which had been notified before the
public auction was held."

26. A similar view was taken in the
judgment in Meerut Development Authority Vs.
Association of Management Studies8 and it was
laid down as a legal principle that the bidder who
has participated in the tender process has no other
right except the right to equality and fair treatment
in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids.
The relevant portion of the judgment is being
extracted below :-

"27. The bidders participating in the
tender process have no other right except the right
to equality and fair treatment in the matter of
evaluation of competitive bids offered by
interested persons in response to notice inviting
tenders in a transparent manner and free from
hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms
and conditions of the tender except on the above
stated ground, the reason being the terms of the
invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract.
No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist
the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further
negotiations unless the terms and conditions of
notice so provided for such negotiations.

28. It is so well-settled in law and
needs no restatement at our hands that disposal of
the public property by the State or its
instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust.
The methods to be adopted for disposal of public
property must be fair and transparent providing an
opportunity to all the interested persons to
participate in the process.

29. The Authority has the right not to
accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender
other than the highest bidder, if there exist good
and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not
representing the market price but there cannot be
any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting
or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness
or favoritism."

27. The aforesaid legal position with regard
to the right of a successful bidder at a public
auction has been considered in a recent decision of
this Court in Babloo (supra).

28. The legal position that a successful
bidder in a public auction does not acquire any
vested rights to have the auction concluded in his
7 All. Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
favour and the authority concerned is not under all
circumstances bound to accept the highest tender
or bid, is fairly well-settled. It is open to to the
authority, if there exist good sufficient reasons, not
to conclude the auction proceedings in favour of
the successful bidder.

29. In the instant case, the reasons which
have been put forward by the respondentauthorities, not to conclude the auction
proceedings being in larger public interest with
a view to create sustainable and long term
productive assets by increasing the availability
of water which is one of the most valuable
natural resources, cannot be held to be an
insufficient reason which had persuaded the
respondent-authorities not to conclude the
auction proceedings in favour of the petitioner.

30. The concept of a welfare State is a facet
of Article 38 of the Constitution of India and it is
the objective of the State to see that the welfare of
the people is appositely promoted. Salus populi
est suprema lex is a maxim found in Cicero's De
Legibus9, and it means the welfare of the public
shall be the supreme law and in case of any
conflict, an individual interest must yield to the
community
interest.
The
State
and
its
instrumentalties must serve the society as a whole
keeping the public interest as primary and any
other interest as secondary. The greatest good of
the greatest number and the benefit and happiness
of all is to be avowed is object of a democratic
polity and the authorities of the State are to act in
furtherance of the same.

31. Counsel for the petitioner has not been
able to dispute the aforestated factual and legal
position.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also not been able to dispute that the development
of the pond in question which is proposed as part
of a scheme of national interest would be in the
larger public good.

33. Accordingly, learned counsel states that
the petitioner does not wish to pursue the matter
any further.

34. It would be open to the petitioner to
seek refund of the bid amount by responding
to the notices issued earlier in regard to the
same.

35. The petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 5284 of 2009
With
Writ-C No. 44108 of 2010
With
Writ-C No. 56439 of 2010
With
Writ-C No. 7015 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 41284 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 42531 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 42669 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 44245 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 51960 of 2011
With
Writ-C No. 913 of 2012
With
Writ-C No. 48816 of 2012
With
Writ-C No. 34847 of 2013

Manjeet Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents