Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1999
  6. /
  7. January

Mohammad Khan vs Zila Parishad, Banda And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 July, 1999

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri S. R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent No. 3. Sri W. H. Khan, who has filed Vakalatnama to represent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. is not present.
2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to refund to him the amount of Rs. 10,100, with penal interest @ 15% per annum, paid to them as bid-money for contract for disposal of dead animals for the financial year 1991-92.
3. The relevant facts are these :
The Zila Parishad, Banda, issued a notification dated 2.5.1991 notifying that it shall hold auction on 14.5.1991 for settling a contract for disposal of dead animals blockwise for the year 1991-92 and inviting public to participate therein.
The petitioner participated in the auction for the village Sandasaril Nyay Panchayat Centre under Block Kamasin of the district Banda and offered a bid of Rs. 10,100. His bid was highest, and was accepted. He was directed to deposit the bid-money which he did vide receipts dated 14.5.1991 and 25.5.1991.
Despite acceptance of the bid and deposit of the entire bid-money by the petitioner, the respondents did not confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the Zila Parishad. Banda issued two notifications dated 3.6.1991 and 20.6.1991 fixing 10.6.1991 and 3.7.1991 for re-auction without cancelling the earlier auction or rejecting the bid of the petitioner.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner could not work under the contract for which he had offered highest bid which was accepted.
The petitioner approached the respondents repeatedly for confirmation of the auction in his favour and execution of the agreement in pursuance thereof, but the respondents did not pay heed to his request.
Eventually, the petitioner approached the respondents by his application dated 10.1.1992 for refund of the bid-money deposited by him.
On receipt of the above application of the petitioner the respondents addressed to the petitioner a letter dated 3.2.1992 calling upon him to sign the agreement so that work order may be Issued to him. On inquiry by the petitioner the respondent informed him that the agreement would be only for the period expiring on 31.3.1992 while the petitioner had offered his bid for one complete financial year, commencing on 1.4.1991 and ending on 31.3.1992.
In view of the fact that the contract offered to him was only for the remaining period of about two months of the financial year 1991-92. the petitioner asserts that he was entitled to have his bid-money refunded instead of accepting the offer given by the respondents.
4. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit disputing the averments of the petitioner. Thus, the averments of the petitioner are accepted.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner had offered the highest bid and his bid was accepted for the contract for disposal of the dead animals for the financial year 1991-92 : that the petitioner deposited the bid-money amounting to Rs. 10,100. that the bid of the petitioner was not confirmed : that the petitioner was prevented from working under the contract during the period of which he had offered his bid without there being any fault on his part ; and that the petitioner was not bound to accept the offer of the respondents for entering into the agreement only for a period of about two months of the financial year 1991-92. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the respondents are not entitled to withhold the bid-money deposited by the petitioner. The respondents have disclosed no justification for withholding the bid-money of the petitioner. Indeed, the withholding of the bid-money of the petitioner and refusal to return the same to the petitioner amounts to unjust enrichment which is forbidden by law. There being no valid Justification for withholding the bid-money of the petitioner, the respondents have incurred the liability to pay the petitioner Interest on the bid-money.
6. For what has been said above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents generally, and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 specifically, are directed to refund to the petitioner the bid-money of Rs. 10.100 deposited by him along with interest thereon @ Rs. 15% per annum, to be computed from the date of deposit till the date of payment, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and judgment before them. There is no order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mohammad Khan vs Zila Parishad, Banda And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 July, 1999
Judges
  • D Sinha
  • O Bhatt