Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24898 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjay Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the notice dated 25.09.2020 published on the notice board in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Padrauna and the advertisement dated 3rd October, 2020 to the same effect published in a daily newspaper namely ‘Hindustan’ and the entire proceeding initiated in pursuance of the same with regard to auction of the ten year lease for Pokhari/Gata No.3890 & 3891 of the revenue village Semra Hardo and Pokhari/Gata No.1294 K of the revenue village Katya Tappa – Chaura Badgaon, Pargana – Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil, Padrauna, District - Kushinagar.
Petitioner’s contention is that admittedly, earlier an advertisement was published on 09.01.2018 in which petitioner had participated and was adjudged as successful bidder. Admittedly, he had deposited some amount towards the lease rent but could not deposit the remaining amount as a result re- auction took place in pursuance of the advertisement dated 03.10.2020. Petitioner’s case is that there was no condition in the earlier advertisement as has been incorporated now to deposit the remaining amount of the bid within 15 days, and therefore, any default on his part cannot be liveraged against him for issuance of fresh advertisement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to pay the remaining amount of lease rent along with interest and penalty, if any, but the current advertisement inviting offers be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has not brought all the material on record. Once he did not execute the agreement by depositing necessary lease rent then merely absence of mention of a condition in the advertisement will not render the authorities tooth-less to not to invite fresh bids. Loss of revenue to the State on account of default of the petitioner could not be allowed to perpetuate.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through records, it is apparent that principle of waiver will be applicable in the present case. By not entering into an agreement for which deposit of lease rent in toto appears to be a condition, petitioner has waived his right and once he does so, he cannot claim it later. It is not the case of the petitioner that at any point of time he was not aware of the requirement of depositing complete lease rent as is made out from his submissions before this court that now he is willing to pay the remainder of the lease rent along with interest and penalty. This admission reflects that petitioner had voluntarily and intentionally abundant existing legal right i.e., the right of getting the agreement executed subject to fulfilment of certain conditions.
Once the petitioner gave up this right, that to after being fully informed as to his right and with full knowledge of such right, no relief can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
Petitioner’s contention is that he had approached the respondent no.3 for depositing the remaining amount is not substantiated through any independent evidence and the ground of pandemic covid-2019 is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as worldwide out break of covid took place in November – December, 2019 and was officially recognized in India in the month of March, 2020, lapse on the part of the petitioner from January, 2018 to March, 2020 cannot be covered in the name of out break of pandemic. Thus on account of waiver and also on account of the fact that petitioner had not exercised his legal right of getting the agreement executed subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions of the agreement, no indulgence is required.
Petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 VS