ORDER M. Katju, J.
1. This is an application filed by one Shakti Narain Singh praying for leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda. This application has been filed because the applicant was not a party in the court below.
2. The dispute was regarding settlement of a Tehbazari contract by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra, district Banda in favour of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 Anoop Singh. It is alleged by the applicant that this contract in favour of Anoop Singh was granted by Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra without holding public auction and without advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation as is the legal requirement vide A.S. Advertising Co., Meerut and Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Meerut and Anr., 2001 (1) AWC 28 ; Gunnu v. District Officer, 2001 (3) AWC 2032.
3. In Shri Shekhar Transport Co., Etawah v. Managing Director, U.P. Raj Bhandaran Nigam, 2003 (3) AWC 2287 a Division Bench held that a time- bound auction cannot be extended as this extension violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. In A.S. Advertising Co., Meerut v. Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra), this Court held that advertisement in an unknown newspaper stands on the same footing as no advertisement at all.
5. From the fact it appears that the plaintiff respondent Anoop Singh was granted theka in question on a mere application and without public auction and without advertising it in well known newspaper. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Ramanna v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, that public contracts are not largesse.
6. Moreover, it appears that there was no written contract at all in favour of Anoop Singh and he was permitted to operate the theka by Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra by verbal orders. No written contract has been produced before us at all. Anoop Singh has only relied on an approval by the District Magistrate, Banda dated 31.7.2003 by a single word 'Anumodit' vide Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-
affidavit of Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra.
7. In our opinion such approval is wholly illegal because unless the contract is advertised in a well known newspaper having wide circulation and thereafter public auction is held mere approval will be of no avail to the person who has obtained this contract because there will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. For all these reasons it is evident that the contract to Anoop Singh was wholly illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. It appears that Anoop Singh filed a Suit No. 51 of 2004 against the State of U.P. and Nagar Palika Parishad. Atarra but has not impleaded any private person in the suit. Obviously if the contract in favour of Anoop Singh was illegal then there should have been a fresh auction after advertising it in well known newspaper having wide circulation and in that fresh auction the applicant Shakti Narain Singh would have an opportunity to make a bid. Hence in our opinion Shakti Narain Singh and other persons certainly have a right to appeal against the impugned order. In fact it seems that Anoop Singh and the Nagar Palika Parishad are in collusion and that is why in the suit only the State Government and the Nagar Palika Parishad, Atarra have been made parties.
10. Learned counsel for Anoop Singh has urged that the applicant Shakti Narain Singh can file an impleadment application in the suit. In our opinion this would not serve the ends of justice. It is well known that suits take years and years to be decided and thus the whole matter would be frustrated.
11. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the applicant certainly comes within the category of aggrieved persons and he is entitled to file this appeal. This application is therefore allowed.