Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1853  OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.8448 of 2012)

ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PHULTORA AND ANR.               ....Appellants

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.            ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2.    This appeal assails an order dated 15.12.2011 passed by  

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  

allowing Letters Patent Appeal No.1457 of 2009 setting aside the  

order of the learned Single Judge and declining to interfere with the  

order  of  the  Collector  dated  16.10.2008,  auctioning Ghurandera  

Kilagarai Ghat and direction to the appellant-society to deposit the  

balance bid amount of Rs.10,80,000/- for the year 2008-2009 for  

settlement of the said ghat.

3.    A public  notice  dated 16.10.2008 was issued by the  

1

Page 2

Zonal Officer,  Alauli for auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for  

the  year  2008-2009  in  which  Reserve  Jama  was  fixed  at  

Rs.33,350/-.   Three  bidders  had taken part  in  the  auction,  the  

highest bidder at Rs.16,00,100/- by Sushil Kumar and that one  

Lalan Kumar and Shri Ram Bilash Yadav who also participated in  

the bid at Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively.  At the  

time  of  Dak,  the  appellant-society  which was  present  there  

accepted the settlement under protest and deposited one third of  

the  total  bid  amount.  The  appellant-society  then  prayed  for  

recalling the open bid for the year 2008-2009  on the ground that  

the bid amount was very much higher and also to fix the amount  

only  with  fifteen  percent  increase  of  the  previous  years  and  for  

direction upon the respondent to adjust the amount deposited by it  

in  the  future  instalment.  Request  of  the  appellant-society  was  

declined; however, liberty was granted to the appellant-society that  

it can avail next two settlements for consecutive years at the same  

settlement amount without any further Jama or open bid.     

4.    The appellant-society then filed Writ Petition No.3646 of  

2009  praying  for  quashing  the  order  dated  16.10.2008  inviting  

open bid for settlement of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the period  

2008-2009 through public auction.  The appellant alleged that the  

bid amount was very much higher than the amount on which ghats  

2

Page 3

were being settled for the previous years.  Learned Single Judge  

disposed of the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the  

Collector, Khagaria observing that the persons who bid the amount  

were  not  really  interested in taking the settlement  and that  the  

appellant-society had taken the ghat under protest.  The learned  

Single Judge directed the authorities to re-consider the matter in  

the  light  of  various  circulars  of  the  State  Government.  Being  

aggrieved,  respondent-State  of  Bihar  preferred  appeal  in  LPA  

No.1457 of 2009 which was allowed by the Division Bench holding  

that the record revealed that every year the amount of bid has gone  

up  and  as  such  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  go  into  the  

disputed questions of fact with regard to the bid amount and that it  

was for the appellant-society to work out its remedies before the  

appropriate forum.

5.    Learned counsel for the appellant-society Mr. Subhro  

Sanyal submitted that bid amount of Rs.16,00,000/- for which the  

ghat was settled is arbitrary and is very much on the higher side  

than the  standardized  revision by fifteen percent  of  the amount  

over and above the amount fixed in previous years and hence the  

respondents are obligated to re-fix the amount. It was contended  

that the appellant-society had accepted the bid only under protest  

and  the  Division  Bench  failed  to  consider  the  fact  that  the  

3

Page 4

appellant-society  had  reserved  its  right  to  challenge  the  public  

auction Ghurandera Kilagarai  Ghat  by  Circle  Officer,  Alauli  and  

deposit  of  one  third  amount  under  protest  does  not  amount  to  

acquiescence and waiver of appellant's legal right.

6.    Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  

Mr. Shivam Singh contended that the Circle Officer, Alauli not only  

accepted  the  recommendation  of  the  District  Level  Committee  

rather he has acted as per the direction of the Government letter to  

go  through  open  evaluation  process  in  order  to  augment  the  

revenue of the State.  The respondents further contended that the  

appellant-society took the settlement of  the ghat on the amount  

assessed  through  open  bid  and  as  such  appellant-society  is  

estopped from assailing the auction of the ghat by inviting bids.  

7.    We have carefully considered the rival contentions and  

perused the impugned order and materials on record.

8.    Pursuant  to  the  auction  notice  dated  16.10.2008,  

auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat was held on 27.10.2008 in  

which  three  persons  participated  and  the  highest  bid  was  at  

Rs.16,00,100/-   by one Sushil  Kumar.   By perusal  of  record of  

proceedings  of  auction  of  Ghurandera  Kilagarai  Ghat  (Annexure  

P/10),  it  is  seen that  at  the  time of  Dak,  appellant-society  was  

present there and its opinion on the highest Dak was obtained and  

4

Page 5

the appellant-society had then taken the settlement of the said ghat  

under protest.  Relevant portion of record of auction proceedings of  

Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat dated 27.10.2008, reads as under:

“The highest  bid  had done by  the Dakvakta  No.  3  Shri  Sushil  Kumar  S/o  Shri  Satya  Narayan  Pra.Yadav,  R/o  Govindpur  Natoliya Sahebpur Kamal,  Baigusarai.   At the time of Dak, the  Alauli Zonal Bodh Traffic Society Ltd., Phoolwada, Khagdiya was  present there. Get his opinion on this highest Dak.     

Ready to take with objection                         Sd/-”

Even though the appellant-society had neither participated in the  

auction  nor  submitted  the  bid,  appellant-society's  opinion  was  

obtained on the higher Dak and the appellant-society accepted the  

bid  under  protest  for  Rs.16,00,000/-.  Though,  no  plausible  

explanation is  shown to  us as  to  why the appellant-society  was  

given the contract when it had not participated in the auction or  

submitted its bid, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted  

that Sushil Kumar, who was the highest bidder and had given the  

bid  of  Rs.16,00,100/-,  did  not  come forward  and  it  is  in  these  

circumstances the appellant was offered the contract of the said  

ghat at the aforesaid  rate.  Be that as it may, Sushil Kumar, who  

was the highest bidder, did not question the settlement of ghat in  

favour of the appellant-society and, therefore, such a question is  

not to be gone into in these proceedings.  Since the contract was  

awarded to the appellant-society and insofar as the said award is  

concerned, nobody has challenged the validity thereof, we are only  

5

Page 6

called  upon to  decide  as  to  whether  the  appellant-society  could  

question  the  settlement  bid  of  Rs.16,00,000/-  at  which  the  

settlement of ghat was given to the appellant-society.   

9. It emerges from the record that the reason for auctioning  

the said ghat was that the Circle Officer, Alauli had accepted the  

recommendation of the District Level Committee and acted as per  

the Government instruction vide letter No.2526 dated 12.09.1978  

to  go through open auction process which is  mandatory for  the  

settlement  of  the  ghats  for  every  third  year.  As  per  the  

recommendation  of  the  District  Level  Committee,  in  order  to  

augment the State revenue, the authorities are expected to invite  

bids  through  auction  process  and  ensure  transparency  in  

acceptance of the bids.  The auction process inviting the bids in the  

settlement of ghat cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of  

government  circulars.  In  auction,  the  highest  bid  received  is  of  

Rs.16,00,000/- as mentioned above. Further, as pointed out above,  

the appellant-society was not a bidder and did not participate in  

the auction.  However, still it was offered to have the ghat settled in  

its favour on payment of Rs.16,00,000/- which was the highest bid  

received.  It agreed to do so but accepted the bid under protest.  We  

do not find any justifiable reason to challenge either the auction or  

the aforesaid bid amount.  Had the appellant-society refused, the  

6

Page 7

only  other  course  of  action  was  to  invite  the  bids  again.  The  

amount of Rs.16,00,000/- had a rationale behind it as it was the  

highest bid and, therefore, having agreed to take the settlement of  

ghat for Rs.16,00,000/- the appellant-society was not justified in  

challenging the auction of  ghat  by inviting bids.  More so,  when  

Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat was not the solitary ghat in which the  

auction has been held but other ghats were also auctioned and  

settled at much higher amounts.   

10.    Contention of  the appellant-society is that in view of  

various circulars of the Government, the upward revision of reserve  

Jama could only be fifteen percent of the reserve Jama/settlement  

amount  for  the  previous  years  and  the  bid  amount  of  

Rs.16,00,000/-  for  the  ghat  in  question  is  arbitrary  and  un-

reasonable.  According  to  the  appellant-society,  Reserve  Jama  

Committee  fixed the  reserve  Jama for  settlement of  Ghurandera  

Kilagarai Ghat for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 at  

Rs.28,750/- Rs.29,000/- and Rs.33,500/- respectively.  

11.    For the reasons given above, we have no hesitation to  

reject the aforesaid contention.  It is re-emphasized that when the  

decision was taken to go through the open auction process which  

was  even  otherwise  justifiable  in  order  to  augment  the  State  

revenue, the appellant-society cannot object to the same and claim  

7

Page 8

the  settlement  of  ghat  in  its  favour  on  payment  of  15% of  the  

reserved Jama/settlement amount for the previous years.  In fact,  

such a  contention  is  not  even  available  to  the  appellant-society  

inasmuch as the decision of  the respondents  to  go through the  

auction  process  was  never  questioned  or  challenged  by  the  

appellant-society in any judicial proceedings.  On the contrary, it  

jumped to the offer of the respondents and accepted the bid but, at  

the same time, put the uncalled for condition that it was accepting  

the same under protest.  Therefore, it cannot now turn around and  

make out a case that the bid amount should have been 15% of the  

reserved Jama/settlement for the previous years.

12.    The  appellant  placed  reliance  upon  the  letter  dated  

12.04.1982 of the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land  

Reforms,  Government of  Bihar addressed to Collector,  Gopalganj  

stating that minimum fifteen percent increase is to be made in the  

settlement of Jalkar keeping in mind the development of Jalkar and  

rising prices of fish. The said letter dated 12.04.1982 deals with  

development  of  Jalkar  and  Fisheries-cum-Makhana.  Likewise,  

letter dated 09.03.2002 upon which the High Court based its order  

stipulates that the settlement of ghats ought to be made only for  

three years on the basis of reserve Jama.  In the present case, the  

settlement  was  already  done  for  three  years  and  thereafter  the  

8

Page 9

appellant-society was bound to settle the ghat on the basis of open  

bid as per the direction of the Government with a view to re-assess  

the valuation of the settlement and the process of open bid was  

rightly adopted by the appellant-society which was also necessary  

to enhance the revenue of the Government.   

13. Likewise  the  circular  dated  12.02.1981  which  

states  that  instead  of  doing  settlement  of  Jalkar  through  open  

bidding, it  should be made to the cooperative societies for every  

three  years  deals  only  with  Sairats  pertaining to  Fisheries-cum-

Makhana.   By  perusal  of  the  said  circular,  it  is  seen  that  the  

District Fishery Officer and also Fishery Officer from the level of  

Sub-Division are the members of the Committee thereby indicating  

that  the  said  circular  is  only  with  reference  to  Fisheries-cum-

Makhana.  But so far as in the present case Ghurandera Kilagarai  

Ghat, it is concerned with settlement of ghats for transportation of  

men  and  material  through  water  base.  Contention  of  the  

respondents  is  that  the  appellant-society  was  well  aware  of  the  

higher  economic  viability  as  through  these  ghats,  maize  

transportation is  being carried out for  their  export  centres  from  

Khagria Railway Station.

14.    As  pointed  out  earlier,  the  appellant  has  not  earlier  

challenged the auction notice dated 16.10.2008.   On the day of  

9

Page 10

auction dated 27.10.2008, the appellant-society was present and  

when its opinion was obtained on the highest Dak, the appellant-

society accepted the settlement of ghat for Rs.16,00,000/-.  While  

so, it was not open to the appellant-society to challenge the auction  

notice and to seek writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to  

act  as  per  the  decision  of  the  District  Level  Reserve  Jama  

Committee. As pointed out earlier, the Circle Officer accepted the  

recommendation of the District Level Committee and gone through  

the open evaluation process which is mandatory for settlement of  

ghats for every third year after the evaluation of open bid process.

15.    Be it noted, Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat was not the only  

solitary ghat auctioned, but auction was held for other ghats also  

and the bid amount had gone much higher than the amounts at  

which the ghats were being settled in the previous years.   In fact,  

the  appellant-society  was  successful  in  offering  the  highest  bid  

amount for other ghats at Rs. 20,00,000/-.  Having participated  

and having emerged as the successful bidder for other ghats, the  

appellant-society is not justified in challenging the auction inviting  

open  bids  for  Ghurandera  Kilagarai  Ghat.  The  Division  Bench  

rightly observed that every year the amount of bid has gone up and  

therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to go into such disputed  

questions of fact with regard to bid amount.  We do not find any  

10

Page 11

reason warranting interference with the impugned order.     

16.    It  is to be pointed out that the appellant-society has  

deposited only thirty per cent of the amount and even after serving  

three notices by the Circle Officer Alauli, the rest of the amount has  

not yet been paid.  While granting stay of the impugned order, vide  

order dated 23.03.2012, this Court directed the appellant-society to  

deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The respondents are at liberty to  

proceed against the appellant-society to recover the amount due  

from the appellant-society.

17.    In the result, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties  

to bear their respective costs.   

                      ….….....................CJI.                                                                (T.S. THAKUR)

 .….……....................J.                                                            (A.K. SIKRI)

 .……….....................J.                                                                          (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi, February 26, 2016.  

11