w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mandar Madhusudan Bahudhandhi Swablambi Sahkari Sammittee Ltd v/s State of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- MADHUSUDAN LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17110DL1934PLC002542

Company & Directors' Information:- MADHUSUDAN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232RJ1994PTC008405

    C.W.J.C. 112 Of 2007

    Decided On, 11 January 2007

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PD. SINGH

    For the Appearing Parties: Rajendra Narayan, Rajiv Kumar Singh, A.C. Nirankar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division as endorsed on the application of intervener dated 20-12-2006 (Annexure-9) and consequential communication thereof from the office of the Commissioner to the Collector and Additional Collector, Banka being communication dated 21-12-2006, as contained in Annexure-9/a. By the aforesaid impugned orders, the settlement of the right to collect rent of Bounsi Mela on behalf of the State which was settled with the petitioners has been ordered to be cancelled and the steps are ordered to be taken for fresh settlement. When the matter was taken up for admission, an intervention was sought to be made on behalf of Nikhil Bahadur Singh and Amar Kumar Singh who professed that it was on their initiative and on their application that the Commissioner had rightly set aside the settlement. They, as such, sought leave to intervene in the matter and file a counter-affidavit justifying the necessity of setting aside the settlement made in favour of the petitioners. This was permitted and that is how this case is being taken up now with the consent of all the parties.

(3.) In the district of Banka, a fair (Mela) is held known as Bounsi Mela. The right to collect rent therein vests in the State Government. Settlement is made for a period of one year though primarily the Mela is held for one full month. It starts from Makar Sankranti that is 14th of January for a period of one month. The State Government having taken decision to appoint collecting agents of rent and tolls therein on their behalf make settlement in this regard by calling for an open auction.

(4.) For the present year, it is not in dispute, that public notice was duly given. It is not in dispute that in newspaper, due advertisement was issued in regard to the said proposed settlement fixing 14-12-2006, 18-12-2006 and 22-12-2006 as the three alternative dates on which public auction would be done amongst the participants. If on 14th settlement was made then the other two dates became infructuous. If for any reason on 14th, no settlement could be made then it would be so done on 18th. If on 18th it was finalised then 22nd was an infructuous date. These three dates are usually given as there may not be necessity to readvertise each time for any reason there is failure.

(5.) In the present case on 14-12-2006, it is not in dispute, that there was a strike in the Collectorate and, as such, the auction could not take place. The next date being 18th, the petitioners and others were present but no one offered above the reserve Jama. It were petitioners alone who offered the highest amount equivalent to the reserve Jama which is the reserve price and, as such, the Additional Collector accepted his bid and directed him to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,04,988/- with 10% security totalling to Rs. 2,25,486/- which the petitioners deposited in cash on the same date as is evidenced by receipt appended as Annexure-8. Thus, the petitioners had completed his part and became a settlee of the Mela in question, right to collect rent and tolls. It now appears that an application was filed before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division under whose supervision, the settlements have to be made on 20-12-2006 by Vayvasasyee Kalyan Samiti, Banka. In the said application all that was said was even though there was paper advertisement fixing the dates and. accordingly, settlement was made in favour of the petitioners for the said amount as indicated above, they were now ready to offer more than the amount at which settlement had been made 22nd was the last date indicated in the advertisement and, as such, to enable them to participate, the Commissioner may set aside the settlement and direct fresh auction on 22nd. On this application being filed on it itself, the Commissioner endorsed that that auction should be reheld and this was then followed by a formal communication dated 21-12-2006 (Annexure 9/a) wherein under orders of the Commissioner, it was directed that the settlement made with the petitioners be cancelled and the settlement be readvertised by public auction. It is these two communications that are under challenge.

(6.) On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that once the petitioners had participated in the settlement process, succeeded, deposited the entire bid amount the settlement was complete and could not be set aside except on the grounds known to law. It could not be set aside merely because subsequently someone turns up and offers to pay a higher amount. It is submitted that the auction process in law is complete the moment the bid is finally accepted. The law in this regard then operates. The law is not different when it comes to State action or State revenue. The law does not exempt State Government from the legal consequences of their actions. Secondly, it is submitted that even if for any reason, the settlement had to be cancelled, it could not have been cancelled without due notice to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners.

(7.) The interveners, on the other hand, submit that they had intended to participate in the auction on 18-12-2006. They had accordingly made a representation, as contained in Annexure-1 to their intervention application. It is submitted on their behalf that the settlement made with petitioners is a sham settlement. They were precluded from participating in the auction process. This was sufficient to vitiate the settlement process. It was further stated that the Commissioner had full right in the interest of revenue to cancel the settlement made if there was likelihood to get a better revenue for the State Government.

(8.) These are the rival contentions which are required to be resolved in the present matter.

(9.) Firstly, coming to the submissions on behalf of interveners, suffice to say that there are no documents on record to show that the interveners or anyone else intended to participate in the settlement process held on 18-12-2006. This grievance is not apparent from any of the several representations brought on record by the interveners and the petitioners. The representations clearly state that they were now ready to offer highest bid and in none of the representations, there is any complaint or whisper thereof that anyone was precluded from participating in the process. On the other hand, Annexure- 1 to the intervention application is eloquent enough to show that what was sought for was a postponement of the settlement process and that too on the ground that they may on the postponed day be in a position to make a higher bid. To my mind, this is clear indication that even though people knew about the dates even though people participated but on the fateful day when settlement was made, they were not in a position to outbid the petitioners and, therefore, this indirect method was adopted to unsettle a settled settlement. The plea of the interveners have no legs to stand rather they are apparently false and cannot be taken note of by this Court.

(10.) Coming to the submission of the petitioners that once settlement has been made and money deposited, accordingly, a concluded contract comes in operation that may not be wholly correct. There is an acceptance by the State to the offer of the petitioners which is a quasi contract at this stage but it nevertheless binds the parties. The State cannot riggle out of the situation merely because at a later stage or at a later date someone thinks of making a better offer. The law is well settled that an arrangement legally entered into is binding on the parties. The same cannot be unsettled unilaterally by any party. The State cannot walk out of a binding arrangement merely because it is economic to do so. The law makes no exception in so far as State is concerned. One must keep in mind the serious consequences which may follow if this uncertainty is allowed to prevail. If this settlement is cancelled and in the next event this amount is not fetched then where is the State left. Who will make good the loss? The law, therefore, does not permit change without legal justification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners has got to be accepted that a settlement duly made with the petitioners could not have been cancelled merely on the plea made by someone that they were ready to enhance the bid and, thus, the State would gain revenue. Such an action is not permissible in fact or in law. On this short issue, this writ application is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures-9 and 9/a, are liable to be set aside.

(11.) However, as it has also been urged that the orders are also bad for violation of principles of natural justice, I deem it proper to decide that issue as well. Commissioner of the Division is fairly a senior responsible officer of the Government. He is supposed to be aware of the simple principles of natural justice. The only grievance that was made to him as appa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rent from Annexure-9 that a party is ready to offer a higher amount and, accordingly, prayed that a settlement made in favour of the petitioners be cancelled. The Commissioner should have been aware that a settlement having been made, civil rights had accrued to the petitioners which could not be taken away in this arbitrary manner and that too without noticing them and/or granting them opportunity of hearing. Further, the order communicated on the next day (Annexure-9/a) does not give any reason for setting aside the settlement. That is another reason that is why the order cannot be sustained. A settlement cannot be cancelled on the whim and caprice of officers of the State. (12.) In that view of the matter, I have no option but to quash the order of the Commissioner as endorsed on Annexure-9 and as communicated by Annexure-9/a. Consequently, the settlement made in favour of the petitioners shall continue and bind the State. This writ application is therefore, allowed. Application allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-01-2020 Dainik Matrubhumi Versus Madhusudan Govindrao Kulkarni & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-12-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Madhusudan N. Mataliya High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-11-2019 Kapilaben & Others Versus Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through POA Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 ICICI Bank Versus L. Madhusudan Rao & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
01-08-2019 Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya Versus State of Gujarat & Others Supreme Court of India
21-02-2019 Pratap Singh Rathiya Versus Madhusudan High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-11-2018 Ramchandra Krushnaji Dhale Thr. Lrs. Versus Madhusudan Jhunjhunwala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-11-2018 Subrata Roy Versus Madhusudan Mukherjee West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-10-2018 Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Versus Madhusudan Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
05-10-2018 Umakant Purushottam Joshi & Others Versus Madhusudan Achyutrao Pasarkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-09-2018 Madhusudan Teli Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-08-2018 Madhusudan Zumbarlal Sarda Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
23-03-2018 Pragati Vidyaniketan High School Rep. by its Correspodnent Madhusudan Versus Mind Shaper Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-11-2017 Madhusudan Kabra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
31-10-2017 Madhusudan Vishwanath Mule Versus Gajanan Vishwanath Mule & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-06-2017 Ashabai & Others Versus Madhusudan In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-05-2017 Keyur Madhusudan Shah & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
09-05-2017 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohan Madhusudan Daskhedkar In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2017 Madhusudan Manikrao Kendre Versus Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte & Others Supreme Court of India
04-04-2017 Jyotindrabhai Madhusudan Joshi Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2017 Madhusudan Samanta Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-02-2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Howrah Divisional Office Madhusudan Apartment & Another Versus Pratima Chakraborty & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-01-2017 Madhusudan & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
25-11-2016 Madhusudan Bhimrao Nandurkar Since deceased & Others Versus Purushottamdas Pranjivandas & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-11-2016 State of Gujarat Versus Madhusudan Texturises Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
04-05-2016 Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar Versus State of Jharkhand & Another Supreme Court of India
10-03-2016 Laxmikanta Chowdhury Versus Madhusudan Paik & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-02-2016 Madhusudan Saha Versus The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Another High Court of Tripura
04-01-2016 Madhusudan Narayan Choubey Versus Madhuri & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
13-11-2015 Mendu Sathi Reddy & Others Versus Mendu Madhusudan Reddy In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
16-10-2015 Eastern Media Limited through the Editor, Sambad & Others Versus Madhusudan Padhi High Court of Orissa
22-07-2015 Madhusudan Das Agarwal & Others Versus Banaras Hindu University & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-06-2015 Madhusudan A. Shaligram & Another Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench Mumbai
18-04-2015 Madhusudan Agarwal Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-02-2015 Ashok Kumar Singh Versus Madhusudan Mukherjee & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-01-2015 Mamta Bhardwaj Versus Madhusudan Bhardwaj High Court of Madhya Pradesh
12-01-2015 Madhusudan Girdharlal Acharya Versus Ushaben Tulshidas Parekh & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-01-2015 Prakash Automobiles & Another Versus Madhusudan Mohanlal Dave & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2014 Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Anil Madhusudan Sawant & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
15-07-2014 Madhusudan Tiwari Versus Medicare TPA Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
24-06-2014 Madhusudan Khandait Versus The Department of Posts & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-06-2014 Madhusudan Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-06-2014 Dipikaben Surendrakumar Pannalal Soni Versus Madhusudan Kanjibhai Dave High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-05-2014 Madhusudan Versus The State (Nct Of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
01-05-2014 Madhusudan C Thakkar Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhawan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-04-2014 Madhusudan Radheshyam Jopat Versus Laxmanrao Vithobaji Samarit In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-09-2013 Madhusudan Manna Versus Sandhya Dey & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-09-2013 Grandhi Madhusudan Rao Versus Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-08-2013 Madhusudan Daulatram Mehra & Others Versus M/s. Jarakahi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-07-2013 Madhusudan Panigrahi Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
26-07-2013 Madhusudan Sahu & Another Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
24-01-2013 Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
15-01-2013 Jacky @ Jaikishan Madhusudan Nakwal Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-12-2012 Dr. Madhusudan Banerjee Versus Ahmed Hossain & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-12-2012 Sudarshan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Madhusudan Guha & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-11-2012 Shobha Madhusudan Sheth Versus Sandeep Shyam Bhanushali High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-11-2012 Madhusudan Versus Susanna @ Sughma Samaul High Court of Madhya Pradesh
31-10-2012 S. Madhusudan Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) & Others High Court of Jharkhand
24-07-2012 Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
11-05-2012 Madhusudan Chhotalal Gandhi Versus O.L. Of Subh Laxmi Mills Ltd. (A Unit Of Gujarat State Texti & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-04-2012 M/s. Madhusudan Rayons P.Ltd.& Another Versus Commr.Cen.Exc.& Cus.Surat-I Supreme Court of India
29-11-2011 Sou. Sanjana Anand Bhosale Versus Anand Madhusudan Bhosale High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-11-2011 M/s. Hemanth Industries, Rep. by G. Veera Prakash Reddy Versus M/s. Sri Datta Products, rep. by its Partner Ramaraju Madhusudan Rao High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-09-2011 B. Madhusudan Reddy Versus Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-07-2011 Dr. Madhusudan Baliarsingh Versus Sasmita Baliarsingh High Court of Orissa
21-07-2011 Madhusudan Gangaji Prabhu Desai & Others Versus Chandrashekar Malkarnekar In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
12-07-2011 Madhusudan Brijlal Vakharia & Another Versus Jam-e-Jamshed Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-05-2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shri Madhusudan Das National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-03-2011 Madhusudan Mishra Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
24-02-2011 Ajay Madhusudan Mukharjee & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2011 Madhusudan Kanodia Versus Neel Mani Kanodia High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-07-2010 Sudha Madhusudan Lanjekar since deceased Ashok Madhusudan Lanjekar & Others Versus Shashikant Gajanan Pathare, since deceased Anjali Shashikant Pathare & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2010 The Standard Chartered Bank Versus Madhusudan Kakani Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-07-2010 Madhusudan Sahu & Another Versus Pabani Behera & Another High Court of Orissa
16-04-2010 Madhusudan Modak Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-04-2010 M/s Sri Constructions rep, by its Managing Partner Polavarapu Srinivas Versus Paravthaneni Madhusudan Rao Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
15-02-2010 Madhusudan Govindrao Trivedi Versus UCO Bank, Head Office, Personal Department, Calcutta & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-02-2010 Jaigopal Verma alias Madhusudan Versus Rajendra Singh Sacheti High Court of Rajasthan
18-01-2010 Madhusudan Shrikrishna Versus M/S. Emkay Exports & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-11-2009 Madhusudan Sahu Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
03-08-2009 Sri B. Madhusudan Versus The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench
30-07-2009 Madhusudan Mondal Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-05-2009 Madhusudan Dikshit Versus Uco Bank High Court of Orissa
06-05-2009 Madhusudan Mohanlal Futnani Versus Vishanji Dungarmal Futnani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-03-2009 Madhusudan Bhardwaj v/s Mamta Bhardwaj High Court of Madhya Pradesh
31-03-2009 Madhusudan Mukherjee Versus State Of Bihar High Court of Bihar
25-03-2009 Smt. Snehal w/o Sanjay Bapat Versus Shri Sanjay s/o Madhusudan Bapat In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-03-2009 Madhusudan Behera & Others Versus District Judge, Sundargarh & Others High Court of Orissa
13-03-2009 Madhusudan Saha Versus Rebati Rani Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-10-2008 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Madhusudan Das & Others Supreme Court of India
17-10-2008 State of Gujarat Versus Hitesh Kumar Madhusudan Adhvaryu High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
08-08-2008 Madhusudan Sarkar Versus State High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-08-2008 K. Madhusudan S/o Narayana Versus The Chairman/Person Incharge Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative, Society Ltd & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
02-07-2008 Madhusudan Jhun Jhunwala Versus Director, Enforcement Directorate Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange New Delhi
26-06-2008 M/s. Emkay Exports & Others Versus Madhusudan Shrikrishna High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2008 Madhusudan Shrikrishna Versus Emkay Exports & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-02-2008 Madhusudan Kar Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-02-2008 Madhusudan Kar Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2008 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS SRI MADHUSUDAN GANGULY High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2008 Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box