# Satyabeer Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 457 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-01 - **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyabeer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43470 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote C.S.C., Shri Anil Kumar Mishra. Held - Para 1 - Petitioner challenged rejection of his highest bid and sought direction to grant him fishing rights. Para 2 - Records that petitioner was highest bidder (Rs.24.25 lakhs) and deposited 25%, but approval was withheld. Para 3 - Shows complaint by respondent No.5 alleging he was stopped from bidding and political interference followed. 458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 4 - Confirms Director acted on complaint routed through ruling party MLA and Chief Minister's office. Para 5 - Cancellation was based only on comparison with last year's Rs.60 lakh bid. Para 6 - Court notes earlier Rs.60 lakh bidder defaulted and earlier auctions also failed due to nonpayment. Para 7 - State admits political complaint and previous defaults; justifies cancellation only on revenue loss. Para 8 - Respondent No.5 claims he was prevented from bidding. Para 9 - Court finds respondent No.5 never bought tender; complaint held frivolous and politically motivated. Para 10 - Court holds previous Rs.60 lakh bid cannot be relied upon because it was never paid. Para 11 - Auction cannot be disturbed merely because someone later offers a higher amount. Para 12 - Since respondent No.5 never purchased tender, he had no right to object. Para 13 - Reserved price of Rs.22 lakhs was reasonable based on past failures. Para 14 - Director acted arbitrarily and under political pressure in cancelling petitioner's bid. Para 15 - Cancellation order quashed; authorities directed to finalize auction in petitioner's favour. Para 16 - Writ petition allowed without costs Petition Allowed. List of Case Laws Cited - ## Text 3 All. Satyabeer Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 457 48. In view of above facts and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the State Government dated 15th October, 2015 is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. 49. Writ petition stands allowed. 50. The financial and administrative power of the petitioner be restored back forthwith. However, this order shall not stand in the way of the State Government concluding the proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to the notice dated 15.10.2015 in accordance with law. It shall also be open to the State Government to pass fresh orders in respect of financial and administrative power to be exercised by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings in accordance with the law and the procedure. 51. Needless to say that since the petitioner holds an elected office, which is for a fixed term provided by the Statute, the State Government shall bring the proceedings to a logical end within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J. Writ C No.- 64030 of 2015 Satyabeer Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shri Anil Kumar Mishra. Held - Para 1 - Petitioner challenged rejection of his highest bid and sought direction to grant him fishing rights. Para 2 - Records that petitioner was highest bidder (Rs.24.25 lakhs) and deposited 25%, but approval was withheld. Para 3 - Shows complaint by respondent No.5 alleging he was stopped from bidding and political interference followed. 458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 4 - Confirms Director acted on complaint routed through ruling party MLA and Chief Minister's office. Para 5 - Cancellation was based only on comparison with last year's Rs.60 lakh bid. Para 6 - Court notes earlier Rs.60 lakh bidder defaulted and earlier auctions also failed due to nonpayment. Para 7 - State admits political complaint and previous defaults; justifies cancellation only on revenue loss. Para 8 - Respondent No.5 claims he was prevented from bidding. Para 9 - Court finds respondent No.5 never bought tender; complaint held frivolous and politically motivated. Para 10 - Court holds previous Rs.60 lakh bid cannot be relied upon because it was never paid. Para 11 - Auction cannot be disturbed merely because someone later offers a higher amount. Para 12 - Since respondent No.5 never purchased tender, he had no right to object. Para 13 - Reserved price of Rs.22 lakhs was reasonable based on past failures. Para 14 - Director acted arbitrarily and under political pressure in cancelling petitioner's bid. Para 15 - Cancellation order quashed; authorities directed to finalize auction in petitioner's favour. Para 16 - Writ petition allowed without costs Petition Allowed. List of Case Laws Cited - (Delivered by Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 4.11.2015 issued by the Director (Fisheries), U. P., Lucknow stating that the highest bid amount of Rs.24.25 lakhs offered by him was much less than the bid amount of Rs.60 lakhs received from the previous year's auction held on 17.12.2014, as such, the same is not accepted and the minimum reserved price of Rs.22 lakhs be reconsidered and thereafter a fresh auction to be held. A further prayer has been made to command the respondents to accept the highest bid offered by him in the auction held on 14.9.2015 within a period to be specified by this Court and permit him to commence the fishing rights in respect of Dhandhraul Dam Category-I at Sonebhadra. 2. The Deputy Director (Fisheries), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur published a notice dated 4.9.2015 for settling the rights for breeding and fishing in the 4 dams situate in Districts- Sonebhadra and Mirzapur, which included Dhandhraul Dam Category-I. The 3 All. Satyabeer Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 459 minimum reserved price for the dam in question was fixed as Rs.22 lakhs. The petitioner participated in the public auction held on 14.9.2015 and offered a bid of Rs.24.25 lakhs for the first year. The bid offered by the petitioner was highest at the close of the auction. The petitioner deposited 25 % of the bid amount. However, since the sanction was not accorded by the Director (Fisheries), the agreement with the petitioner could not be executed. 3. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it appears that during last year the fishing rights was auctioned for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs. Respondent no.5 made a complaint to the Chief Minister alleging that he wanted to deposit the security money for participating in the auction on 14.9.2015 at about 12.40 pm, but the same was not accepted by the Deputy Director (Fisheries) on the ground that the auction has already been settled in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.24.25 lakhs. The complainant was ready and willing to make an offer of Rs.27 lakhs. From the pleadings it further appears that the aforesaid complaint letter was forwarded by local M. L. A. of the ruling party to the Office of Chief Minister along with his covering letter dated 18.9.2015 stating that the auction held on 14.9.2015 has resulted in loss of revenue to the State and fresh auction be held. There is an endorsement on the said letter of the Special Secretary to Chief Minister directing the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra to take appropriate action in the matter. It further appears that after the matter was forwarded from the Office of the Chief Minister to the District Magistrate, the Director, Fisheries issued a letter dated 4.11.2015 directing the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur to cancel the bid of the petitioner and to revisit the minimum base price of Rs.22 lakhs fixed for the same and to re-auction. 4. The said letter was issued in pursuance to the complaint of respondent no.5, which was forwarded to the Office of Chief Minister by the sitting local M. L. A. of the ruling party, which becomes clear from the fact that the copy of the said letter has been sent to the said M. L. A. in pursuance to his letter dated 18.9.2015. 5. A perusal of the impugned letter dated 4.11.2015 issued by the Director, Fisheries goes to show that the bid of Rs.24.25 lakhs offered by the petitioner was found to be on the lower side, inasmuch as, in the auction held during previous year on 17.12.2014, the highest bid offered was of Rs.60 lakhs by one Sri Mustaq Ahmad s/o Isaq Ahmad. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the said Mustaq Ahmad defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of the settlement and only deposited Rs.15 lakhs. Despite repeated directions, Mustaq Ahmad never deposited the outstanding amount of Rs.45 lakhs, as such, the Director (Fisheries) by order dated 4.3.2015 issued directions that in case the remaining amount along with interest was not deposited by 30.6.2015, settlement in his favour would stand cancelled. He further submits that since Mustaq Ahmad did not deposit the outstanding balance, as such, the settlement in his favour stood revoked and fresh auction was held in which the petitioner participated and was the highest bidder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that during the preceding three auctions pertaining to the same Dhandhraul Dam Category-I, the fishing rights stood settled for a sum of Rs.19 lakhs for the year 2010-11, but the bid amount was not deposited by the highest bidder, which led to premature cancellation of the settlement. 460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Subsequently, for the rest two years fresh auction was held in which one Sanjay Kumar Singh offered highest bid for a sum of Rs.19,26,786/- for the first year. However, he only deposited a sum of Rs.7,49,399/- on account of which the settlement in his favour was revoked and fresh auction was directed to be held. Another fresh auction was held in which one Roshan Khan was the highest bidder who offered a sum of Rs.48 lakhs. He failed to make the requisite deposit and the settlement in his favour also stood cancelled. After taking into account the aforesaid facts, the Director (Fisheries) vide order dated 25.7.2013 fixed minimum reserved price as Rs.22 lakhs and since the bid offered by the petitioner was more than the basic minimum price and there was no other highest bidder, there was absolutely no reason or justification on the part of the respondent authorities to have entertained the complaint of a person, who was not even a participant in the auction proceedings and reject the offer made by the petitioner, on the ground that the person was ready and willing to offer higher bid price. It is submitted that in case this is permitted, no auction proceedings can ever be finalized. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents. The allegations made in the writ petition with respect to the fact that respondent no.5 never participated in the auction and that a complaint was made by him, which was forwarded to the Office of the Chief Minister by a sitting M. L. A. of the party in power, on which Special Secretary to the Chief Minister made an endorsement directing the District Magistrate, have not at all been denied. The allegations made in the writ petition with regard to the bid amount offered during previous years and non deposit of the amount by the said highest bidders, has also not been denied rather the fact has been accepted in the counter affidavit. The only ground mentioned in the counter affidavit is that since in the year 2014-15 the Dhandhraul Dam Category-I was auctioned for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs, therefore, the Director (Fisheries) assessed that the highest bid of Rs.24.25 lakhs offered by the petitioner would result in loss to the government revenue and he took a decision to re-tender the auction proceedings and reconsider the minimum reserved value for the reservoir. It is also submitted that the Director (Fisheries) after perusing the complaint came to a conclusion that the auction has been under valued and it would result in loss of revenue. 8. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.5. It is stated therein that answering respondent was also interested in participating in the auction proceedings but when he reached the place of auction at 12.40 pm he was not allowed to deposit the security money nor he was allowed to participate in the auction proceedings. It is further stated that the officials were in collusion with the petitioner and therefore, accepted the bid offered by him for a sum of Rs.24.25 lakhs whereas for previous year the highest amount of bid offered was of Rs.60 lakhs. 9. Except making vague allegations there is absolutely no material in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 to demonstrate that he ever purchased the tender form for participating in the auction proceedings dated 14.9.2015. What has been casually stated that he reached the place of auction at about 12.40 pm but was not allowed to deposit the security money. In absence of any material to demonstrate that respondent no.5 purchased the tender form, it cannot be presumed that he intended to participate in the 3 All. Satyabeer Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 461 auction proceedings but was restrained illegally by the respondent authorities. Prima facie, it appears that after respondent no.5 came to know about the highest bid offered by the petitioner, a frivolous complaint was made by him in respect of being restrained from participating in auction proceedings with an offer of Rs.27 lakhs. It further appears from the record as well as counter affidavit filed by the State that on account of political interference on the basis of complaint made by respondent no.5, the Director (Fisheries) passed the impugned order dated 4.11.2015 cancelling the auction and directing re-auction in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. If such type of complaint is to be entertained, no auction proceedings would ever attain finality as the highest bid offered in an auction proceedings once is known to all and it would be very easy for any person to make a complaint that he was not allowed to participate in the said auction proceedings and make slightly higher offer than the highest bid, and if this process is allowed to continue in the name of loss of government revenue, it would be an unending process resulting in actually no revenue generation causing more loss to the State Exchequer. It is only when the intending participant demonstrates by producing material to establish that he was actually illegally restrained from participating in the auction proceedings and in case, he would have been permitted to participate, the highest bid would have been offered by him, the auction proceedings can be said to be unfair and illegal. Cancellation of a settlement made in any auction proceedings on the basis of a frivolous complaint by any person without demonstrating that he actually intended to participate in the auction but was restrained illegally, cannot be permissible or permitted. 10. The other ground for cancelling the auction proceedings is that reserved price of Rs.22 lakhs was on the lower side as during previous year the highest bid was Rs.60 lakhs. The Director (Fisheries) while issuing the order for re-auction and revisiting the minimum reserved price has failed to take into account that though during previous year the highest bid of Rs.60 lakhs was offered but the highest bidder only deposited Rs.15 lakhs and despite repeated directions and reminders the balance amount of Rs.45 lakhs was never deposited resulting in cancellation of settlement in his favour. This fact, specifically asserted in the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State, rather the fact has been accepted. Same is the position in respect of the offers made for the year 2010-11. Twice the auction was held for a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and Rs.19,26,786/- and in both the cases the highest bidder never deposited the requisite amount on account of which the auction in their favour was revoked and fresh auction was directed. Once there is no denial in the counter affidavit of the State in respect of aforesaid averments, we see no reason as to why the Director (Fisheries) has made basis, the bid of Rs.60 lakhs offered during previous year for cancelling the bid offered by the petitioner, which was much higher than the minimum reserved price determined by the authorities themselves. 11. It is well settled that auction of public property should be conducted in such a manner that it fetches highest price and the public property is not to be fettered or grabbed by unfair procedure and there should be transparency in the transaction. The law is well settled and we need not to refer to various pronouncements of this Court as well as Apex Court on the issue. However, that does not mean that any auction proceeding which has come to logical end and the highest bid has been accepted and there is no discrepancy in the 462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES procedure adopted, the same can be disturbed on a complaint made by a person who was not even a participant only on the ground that he is ready to offer higher price than the highest bid. 12. Admittedly, in the case in hand the auction was carried out after public notice and in case respondent no.5 was interested in participating in the auction proceedings it was very much open to him. We fail to understand as to when he did not even purchase the tender form, how could he have participated in the auction. Merely by making a complaint that he was illegally restrained from participating in the auction without demonstrating that he has purchased the tender form he cannot be said to be an intending participant illegally restrained from participating rendering the auction proceedings illegal. 13. The minimum reserved price is to be determined by the authority on a rational basis keeping in view the bids offered during previous years and the same is not be determined on the imaginary figures based on mere assumption of the authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the bid of Rs.60 lakhs offered during the auction of previous year never culminated into final contract. The highest bidder never deposited the bid offered by him. He only deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. During earlier years also the bids offered about 19 lakhs in two auction proceedings were never deposited and the net result is that the inflated offers of bid made in the auction proceedings could not be finalized and every time the bid has to be cancelled directing re-auction. Thus, as a matter of fact there has been substantial loss to the State Exchequer on account of non finalization of the auction proceedings. It appears that keeping in view these facts in the auction proceeding in question the minimum reserved price was fixed to be Rs.22 lakhs, which appears to be quite just and reasonable. 14. In our view, the Director (Fisheries) committed an error in not according sanction to the bid offered by the petitioner, which was much more than the minimum reserved price, on the basis of the fact that during previous year the auction was made for a sum of Rs.60 lakhs without taking into account the fact that the inflated bids offered during the previous years were never actually deposited by the highest bidder and thus, the same could not be the basis of determining the basic reserved price for the present auction. Further the order passed by the Director (Fisheries) impugned in this petition also smacks of political interference, which is not permissible. 15. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned letter/order dated 4.11.2015 issued by the Director (Fisheries), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed with the finalization of the auction proceedings in favour of the petitioner on the basis of bid offered by him after completing the formalities as contemplated and execute the agreement within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 16. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs. --------- 3 All. Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 463 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Writ C No.- 64718 of 2008 Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Madan Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shri R.P. Singh Held - The petitioners, who were co-sharers of Khata No. 529 in village Khoda, Ghaziabad, challenged the acquisition of three plots-Plot Nos. 121/3, 125 and 666-on the ground that although these lands were notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no award was ever made for these specific plots and physical possession was also not taken due to the existence of their residential abadi. They relied on Naksha-11 and RTI information from the Special Land Acquisition Officer which showed that while the total khata area was 21-13-12 bigha, the award covered only 19-12-12 bigha, and the disputed 2-1-0 bigha was excluded from the award. The NOIDA Authority claimed that the award had been made and possession taken, but it failed to produce any record showing that these three plots were included in the award. The Court found that there was no specific denial of the petitioners' claim that these plots were excluded, nor any explanation for their omission from Naksha-11. Consequently, the Court concluded that no award was ever made for the three disputed plots. Applying Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., the Court held that an award must be made within two years from the last date of publication of the Section 6 declaration, which in this case expired on 01.04.1991. Since no award was made for the disputed plots within this period, the acquisition proceedings for those plots automatically lapsed by operation of law. The Court further rejected NOIDA's argument based on Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, holding that this provision cannot revive an acquisition which had already lapsed under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the High Court declared that the acquisition of Plot Nos. 121/3, 125 and 666 had lapsed, allowed the writ petition, and directed that the lands stood released from acquisition, without any order as to costs. List of Cases cited: