Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Kumar Tiwary vs Zila Parishad on 6 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1216
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1611 of 2020
Bipin Kumar Tiwary ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, represented through its Chairman, Zila
Parishad, Dhanbad.
2. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishahd Dhanbad-cum-Deputy
Development Commissioner, Dhanbad. .... .... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1612 of 2020
Sanjay Kumar Singh ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, represented through its Chairman, Zila
Parishad, Dhanbad.
2. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishahd Dhanbad-cum-Deputy
Development Commissioner, Dhanbad.
.... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate [In W.P.(C) No.1611 of 2020] Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate [In W.P.(C) No.1612 of 2020] For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate
--------
08/06.10.2020 The present writ petitions are taken up today through Video conferencing.
2. W.P.(C) No. 1611 of 2020 has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in Memo no. 220/Zi.Pa dated 5th March, 2018 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad (the respondent no.3) whereby the allotment of a restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, Trisen Bhawan, Dhanbad in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled in the light of letter no.C-13/2016-MPLADS dated 23rd February, 2018 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi.
3. W.P.(C) No. 1612 of 2020 has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in memo no.231/Zi.Pa dated 6th March, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to handover the possession of the leased premises i.e., Multipurpose -2- Building (Marriage Hall) near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad within 24 hours by denying renewal of the lease agreement of the said building in the light of an enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad regarding a complaint filed by one Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Jharudih, Nath Compound, Dhanbad (said to be a person related with the Office of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad).
4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that in the year 2016, the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad took decision for giving the Multipurpose Building (Marriage Hall) and other halls/premises to the highest bidder by way of open auction and, as such, a public auction notice was published in the local newspaper vide memo no.306 dated 09th March, 2017 with respect to settlement of a restaurant situated at Bekarbandh and a multipurpose building situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad for a period of three years by way of lease. The petitioners participated in the said auction held on 24th March, 2017 and being the highest bidders, were declared successful. The petitioner-Bipin Kumar Tiwary was allotted a restaurant at Bekarbandh and a lease agreement to that effect was executed between him and the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad on 29th March, 2017. He started running the said restaurant in the name of "Apple Restaurant". The petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh was allotted multipurpose building (marriage hall) near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad and a lease agreement was executed between him and the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad on 29th March, 2017 renewable after every eleven months. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted their applications on 18th February, 2018 along with payment of rent inclusive of 5% of the increased rent to the respondent no. 3 for renewal of their lease agreement on the terms and conditions as mentioned therein. However, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner Bipin Kumar Tiwary for running restaurant at Bekarbandh was cancelled by the respondent no.3 vide impugned memo no. 220/Zi.Pa. dated 05th March, 2018 in the light of letter no.C-13/2016-MPLADS dated 23rd February, 2018. The petitioner- Sanjay Kumar Singh was also served with letter dated 06th March, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3 informing inter alia that on the complaint of one Ashok Kumar Singh, the allegation was enquired by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad and in the light of the enquiry report, it was decided -3- not to renew the lease agreement of the multipurpose building (marriage hall) and, hence, the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh was directed to handover the possession of the said building to the Assistant Engineer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. The petitioners and others represented against the said impugned notices before the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad- respondent no.2, who thereafter set aside the notices issued by the respondent no.3 vide his letter no.226 dated 06th March, 2018 and advised the said authority that consent/ approval of the respondent no.2 must be taken in all future decisions involving policy matters. According to the petitioners, even after the written assurance of the respondents, the respective agreements were not renewed and as such, the petitioner- Bipin Kumar Tiwary filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1372 of 2018 and the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1270 of 2018. During pendency of the said writ petitions, a meeting of the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad was held on 11th January, 2020. According to the petitioners it was unanimously resolved to renew the respective lease agreements of the petitioners. As such, on the verbal assurance of the respondent no.2, the petitioners withdrew the said writ petitions vide orders dated 6th March, 2020. The respondent no.2 also issued letters to the petitioners that due to the lockdown in force in the wake of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the renewal could not be done. However, the respondent no.3 thereafter published auction notice vide memo no.320 dated 6th June, 2020 whereby the leased premises of the petitioners were put to auction. Hence, the present writ petitions.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Bipin Kumar Tiwary submits that the impugned order dated 5th March, 2018 has been issued by the respondent no.3 without giving any notice to the petitioner and as such, the same is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 5th March, 2018 cannot reasonably be issued alleging violation of "the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme" (MPLADS) guidelines as the restaurant leased out to the petitioner is running in the ground and first floor of the building, whereas the second floor of the said building has been constructed on a later date out of the fund given under MPLADS. It is also submitted that in spite of the fact that the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad had already taken unanimous decision to renew the lease -4- agreement with regard to the restaurant in question in favour of the petitioner, the same was not done at the instance of the respondent no.3. In fact, the said restaurant building was in a dilapidated condition as the same had remained in a locked condition for last 10 years and the petitioner after executing the lease agreement in the year 2017 and on taking over the possession of the said restaurant building, invested huge amount for renovation of the same by taking loan. Thus the impugned order issued by the respondent no.3 being highly arbitrary and illegal, is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh submits that the impugned order dated 6th March, 2018 has been issued by the respondent no.3 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the allegations levelled against him in the complaint filed by one Ashok Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report of the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad. In fact, said Ashok Kumar Singh made a fictitious complaint on 6th December, 2017 before different authorities regarding the irregularities made in the process of allotment of the Multipurpose Building (Marriage Hall) as well as the other buildings but in the enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Dhanbad, he denied to have made any such complaint. It is also submitted that there was no irregularity in making allotment of the said marriage hall, rather it was done through public auction and the petitioner being the highest bidder, was allowed to run the same after executing agreement with him. Moreover, no question was raised in the year 2017 when the lease was granted to the petitioner and a question regarding validity of auction has been raised by way of filing a counter affidavit dated 19th September, 2020 on behalf of the respondent no.1 served to the petitioner on 18th September, 2020 as stated in the rejoinder to the said counter affidavit. It is further submitted that neither the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad nor the Circle Officer, Dhanbad has the authority or jurisdiction to assess the prevalent market rate for leasing out the property of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. It is the Board of Zila Parishad who has the authority to fix the rate for its leased properties. On the one hand, the respondents are claiming that the earlier public autction/allotment was void ab-initio and on the other hand -5- they are contending that the period of lease has already ended on 28th March, 2020. Further, the market rate for the properties of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad has already been fixed as Rs.4/- per square feet and the same shall be increased by 5% on renewal of the same.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the present writ petition is barred by the principles of res judicata, as the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking same relief were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 6th March, 2020 on the request of the petitioners themselves. It is further submitted that the public auction notice dated 9th March, 2017 for leasing out the premises in question i.e., restaurant at Bekarbandh and the multipurpose building (marriage hall) near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad was not widely circulated in the newspapers and as such the principles/objective of publishing the notice got defeated. There was clear violation of established procedure of law in the earlier process of auction for leasing out the buildings of the Zila Parishad, as no resolution to that effect was passed by the Board Members. It would be evident from the lease agreements executed with the petitioners that the premises in question were leased out to them on month to month rental basis. Clause 2 of the lease agreements stipulated that the same were to be renewed after every eleven months with increase of 5% in lease amount every year. The said stipulation clearly manifests that the lease agreements were to be renewed in favour of the petitioner-lessees only if the terms and conditions of the same were duly followed by them. Clause 3 of the agreements further provided that on expiry of the term of lease or on termination of the lease, the lessor would be lawfully entitled to re-enter and re-possess the demised premises without any objection and obstruction from the lessee. In fact, the lease agreements were not renewed after eleven months of their execution keeping in view the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad regarding irregularities which were committed during earlier auction process. However, the petitioners in connivance with local political personalities, continued to have possession of the said premises. It is further submitted that one Ravi Bhusan Prasad signed as one of the witnesses in the lease agreement related to restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, who himself had participated in the open auction of the same and one Kashi Nath Prasad -6- signed as one of the witnesses in the lease agreement related with the multipurpose building (marriage hall) situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad, who himself had participated in the auction process of the said building. The fact clearly indicated that the procedure followed for leasing out the premises in question was improper, keeping the higher authorities in dark. The petitioners without having prior approval of the competent authority and without renewal of the lease agreements, deposited the rental amount for which the Nazir of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad was issued show cause notice. Since the said fact came to the notice of the higher authorities, the amount deposited by the petitioners was immediately returned to them. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further submits that Zila Parishad, Dhanbad being an independent instrumentality of the State generates its revenue through leasing out its building/premises on rent. The respondent no.1 is facing huge revenue loss as the rate at which the premises in question were leased out to the petitioners, are quite low and unreasonable. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad submitted the prevalent market rate for leasing out the buildings of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad at the rate of Rs.15 per square feet. The respondent no.03 instructed the Junior Engineer to calculate the total carpet area by making physical measurement of the multipurpose building (marriage hall) vide letter no.90 dated 6th February, 2020 and after doing so, the carpet area of the said building has been found as 3846.66 square feet and, therefore, the actual rent at the prevalent market rate for one year has been calculated as Rs.6,92,398/-. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions as the maximum period of three years of the lease agreements has already expired. The petitioners without even paying the annual lease amount continued to have the possession of the said premises forcibly in connivance with the local political figures. The resolution dated 11th January, 2020 also suggests that the lease agreements would either be renewed or be allotted afresh as per the prevalent market rate and, therefore, the decision taken to initiate a fresh auction process in terms with the resolution passed by the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad in accordance with law.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. I have also gone through the original record handed -7- over by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to the Court Master in terms with the order dated 9th July, 2020. The petitioners had participated in an open auction conducted by the respondent no.1 on 24th March, 2017 for leasing out the premises as described in the notice dated 9th March, 2017 and being highest bidders, the petitioner-Binay Kumar Tiwary was leased out a restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, Trisen Bhawan, Dhanbad and the petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Singh was leased out a multipurpose building (marriage hall) situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad. After completion of a period of eleven months of the lease, the petitioners made respective applications to the respondent no.3 requesting inter alia to renew their lease agreements on the conditions mentioned therein. However, the same was kept pending and the petitioners preferred writ petitioners being W.P.(C) No.1372 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.1270 of 2018. The said writ petitions were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, as according to them the respondent no.2 had assured to renew the lease agreements in their favour. However, the lease agreements were not renewed and the respondent no.3 issued advertisement for putting the premises in question to fresh auction vide memo no.320 dated 6th June, 2020. This Court vide interim order dated 9th July, 2020 stayed the auction process till further order and in the meantime, the respondent no.1 was directed to lock and seal the said premises. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 apart from making other arguments has emphatically contended that the maximum period of the lease agreement was for three years which has now expired, and as such, the respondent no.1-Zila Parishad Dhanbad has come out with a fresh auction notice for leasing out the premises in question and the petitioners if so wish, may participate in the same. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has, however, been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that the respondent no.1 cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath as on the one hand, the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad has taken decision to renew the lease in favour of the petitioners and on the other hand it has published the notice dated 6th June, 2020 putting the same to fresh auction, which is highly arbitrary and illegal. It has also been submitted that the period of expiry of lease has not been mentioned in the agreements and as such, the respondent no.1 cannot be allowed to contend that the term of -8- lease agreements was for a maximum period of three years.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent no.1, the primary question before this Court is as to whether the term of the respective lease agreements has already expired and if so, whether the petitioners being the earlier lessees are entitled for renewal of the same on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the same. To appreciate the said contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the terms of lease agreements in question. The relevant part of the lease agreement executed with petitioner Bipin Kumar Tiwary and Sanjay Kumar Singh is quoted as under :
"Now this deed witnessth the each of the said parties hereby covenant in manner following:-
1. That, due to highest bid of the lessee his bid amount has been allowed for one year which would be annual rent of the Restaurant for one year from the date of this agreement i.e from 29.03.2017 to ------ and for the second year there would be an increase of ten percent in the annual rent (i.e highest bid amount of the lessee) of restaurant and for the third year there would be increase of twenty percent in the annual rent (i.e highest bid amount of the lessee) of the restaurant.
2. Lease agreement shall be renew after every 11 month and every year 5% shall be increase lease amount (5%+5%+5% value of current lease amount).
And the lessor hereby convenant with the lessee as under:-
-----
3. That, on expiry of the term of the lease or the lease otherwise being terminated the lessor shall be lawfully entitled to re-enter and repossess the demised building without any objection and obstruction from the lessee."
10. It would be evident from the aforesaid clause of the lease agreement that provision was made for enhancement of annual rent for three years subject to renewal of the same after every eleven months with 5% increase in the lease amount.
11. Though the period of lease has not specifically been mentioned in the lease agreement, yet on plain perusal of the terms of the agreement it may be construed that the same was initially for a period of eleven months which could be renewed till maximum period of three years on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The lessor was entitled to take possession of the leased premises either after expiry of the period of lease agreement or on termination of the lease. The auction notice as contained in memo no.306 dated 9th March, 2017 also clarifies the said -9- issue as it was mentioned inter alia in explicit terms that the applications were invited from intending lessees for allotment of a restaurant situated at Bekarband and multipurpose building (marriage hall) for a term of three years on temporary basis.
12. Thus, I am of the considered view that the maximum period of the lease was for three years and by now the said terms has already ended. The petitioners have, however, continued to be in possession of the leased premises till the expiry of the maximum period of lease. Though the respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit has pointed out several irregularities in the auction process held in the year 2017 and has contended that the same was merely an eyewash as the due procedure was not followed while allotting the premises in question to the petitioners, yet keeping in view that the maximum period of the lease agreement executed with the petitioners has already come to an end, the said issue is not required to be considered in detail by this Court.
13. Now surviving question which is required to be considered by this Court as to whether the petitioners being earlier lessees are entitled for renewal of their respective lease agreements on the terms and conditions specified in the same.
14. In the case of Saroj Screens Private Limited Vs. Ghanshyam & Others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 434, the Hon'ble supreme Court has held the lease executed in the favour of the appellant and the consequential action taken for execution of the lease deed dated 4th September, 1991 as illegal having found that the same were done by the Corporation without obtaining sanction of the State Government which was a sine qua non for such action/decision. It was also found by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appellant by taking advantage of its continued possession of the plot, induced the functionaries of the Corporation to enter into a clandestine compromise to forward a proposal to the State Government for grant of post facto sanction in relation to renewal of the concerned lease for 30 years w.e.f. 16th March, 1991 and the authorities also accorded the sanction without realising that alienation of any right or interest of a public property in favour of any person without following the procedure consistent with the doctrine of equality is impermissible. Their Lordships in the said judgment have held as under:-
"38. The question whether the State and/or its
- 10 -
agency/instrumentality can transfer the public property or interest in public property in favour of a private person by negotiations or in a like manner has been considered and answered in negative in several cases. In Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. [(2011) 5 SCC 29] this Court was called upon to examine whether the Government of Madhya Pradesh could have allotted 20 acres land to Shri Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 read with the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975. After noticing the provision of the Act and the Rules, as also those contained in the M.P. Revenue Book Circular and the judgments of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. [(1975) 1 SCC 70], KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K [(1980) 4 SCC 1] , Common Cause v. Union of India [(1996) 6 SCC 530] , Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212] , LIC v. Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 SCC 482] and New India Public School v. HUDA [(1996) 5 SCC 510] , the Court culled out the following propositions: (Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta case [(2011) 5 SCC 29], SCC p. 60, paras 65-66) "65. What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.
66. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution."
15. It may thus be construed that the the Government/ its functionaries cannot deal with any person or entity like private individuals. A democratic Government cannot lay down any arbitrary and capricious standard as per the choice of the persons with whom alone it
- 11 -
wishes to deal with. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities treating the same as a private venture is liable to be considered as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied under Article 14 of the Constitution. The distribution of largesse such as allotment of land, grant of quota, permit, licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner.
16. In the case of Bharmal Medical Store Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 617, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"6. The shop building, as observed above, are not unauthorised structures, but leases have long expired and no steps have been taken by the appellants for renewal of their leases. The rent was Rs 300-400. At the time of initial settlement also, it was done with the appellants on the basis of open bid. Considering the long passage of time since the lease has expired, and the appellants cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue irrespective of such considerations, we deem it proper to observe that it shall be open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the shops in question inside the hospital building. The appellants can also participate in the same. Needless to say that the settlement will have to be made with the highest bidder. The present order cannot be construed as a complete embargo on the respondents with regard to the shop building for all times to come. Any future eventuality, for justifiable reasons, will always leave the authority a discretion for closure of the shops for valid and germane reasons."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that after expiry of lease, the lessee cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue with the possession of the property. The proper course for the authority is to hold open bid for grant of fresh lease.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the respective claims of the petitioners for renewal of the lease, have invited the attention of this Court towards resolution dated 11th January, 2020 issued by the Board of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad. On perusal of the said resolution/minutes of the meeting, it appears that Agenda No.3 was considered and approved passing a resolution with consensus of the members to renew/allot the vacant, new as well as earlier allotted buildings on the prevalent market rate to increase financial resources of Zila Parishand, Dhanbad. However, it may be noticed that the word "renewal" has been inserted in handwriting by putting "slash" after the
- 12 -
word "allotment" making initial by the person who has inserted the same.
19. Be that as it may. Even if it is assumed that the Board of Zila Parishand, Dhanbad had resolved for renewal of the lease, the same has to be treated as arbitrary and violative of the constitutional schemes as has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Saroj Screens Private Limited (supra) and Bharmal Medical Store Vs. State of M.P. (supra), holding inter alia that any allotment of public property is required to be made through public auction giving opportunity to the public at large to participate in the same and, hence, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot insist for renewal of their respective leases even after expiry of the maximum period of three years.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the verbal assurance given by the respondent no.2 that the renewal of their respective lease would be made after withdrawal of the earlier writ petitions upon which they had withdrawn their earlier writ petitioners. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, yet Mr. Jagdeesh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that as per Section 73(C) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2001"), the Chairman of Zila Parishand is empowered to exercise supervision and control over the Chief Executive Officer and through him, over all officers and other employees of the Zila Parishad as well as the employees whose services are placed at the disposal of the Zila Parishad by the State Government. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also referred the provisions of Section 19(3)(f) of the said Act, 2001 and has submitted that though the Chief Executive Officer controls the officers and the employees of Zila Parishad, yet the same is subject to the general supervision and control of the "Adhyaksh"/Chairman i.e., the respondent No.2. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the respondent no.3 before issuing the impugned memos did not take approval of the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad and, hence, those are without jurisdiction.
21. Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 while confronting the said argument made on behalf of the respondent No.2, has submitted that the petitioners have specifically admitted in their respective writ petitions that even after issuance of
- 13 -
memo no. 220 dated 05th March, 2018 and memo no.231 dated 6th March, 2018, the physical possession of the leased premises i.e., the restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, Trisen Bhawan, Dhanbad and the multipurpose building (marriage hall) situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanabd were never handed over to the respondent no.1. It thus surfaces that the aforesaid memos/letters issued by the respondent no.3 were practically never given effect to.
22. Hence, the main question before this Court is not with regard to the power of the Chairman, Zila Parishad rather, as to whether the renewal of the lease agreements can be made after expiry of the maximum period of the same in a manner which is violative of the constitutional schemes as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove. The answer to the said question is certainly in negative. The purpose of letting out the concerned buildings/properties under the ownership of the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad was to raise financial resources. The respondent no.3 before making publication for auction of the premises in question found that the prevalent market rent of the leased buildings is Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. and the petitioners were paying rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. ft. and due to the said reason, the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad was found incurring considerable loss.
23. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners have questioned the power of the Sub Divisional Officer and Circle Officer in determining the market rent of the buildings under the control of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, yet they have accepted the fact that the Zila Parishad can fix the rent of the buildings/premises owned by it and as such if the Zila Parishad agrees with the rate suggested by the Sub Divisional Officer, the same makes no material difference. Moreover, the petitioners have in fact insisted the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad to renew their respective lease agreements on the rate stipulated in the same subject to 5% increase per year, the period of which have already lapsed. Since, it was provided in the auction notice dated 9th March, 2017 itself that the term of lease would be effective for a maximum period of three years and the same was on temporary basis, there is no question of the petitioners having legitimate expectation for further extension of the lease period. Thus, in my view the respondent no.3 has taken correct approach in making fresh auction advertisement with regard to the premises in question. It is not
- 14 -
the case of the petitioners that they have been debarred by the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad from participating in the fresh auction process and, as such, they have failed to make out any case inviting interference of this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction which otherwise is "plenary" in nature. So far as the contention of the petitioners that they have made huge investment in renovating the leased premises, the same is not worth consideration as they themselves were fully aware of the fact that the maximum period of lease agreements executed by them was for three years only.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order dated 9th July, 2020 passed by this Court is, hereby, vacated. The, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad (respondent no.1) is directed to take possession of the premises in question by opening the seal and to conduct a fresh public auction in transparent and fair manner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners will be free to participate in the said auction process and to compete with others as per the terms and conditions of the auction as may be fixed by the Zila Parishad, Dhanbad.
25. The Court Master is directed to handover the original file relating to auction of restaurant situated at Bekarbandh, Trisen Bhawan, Dhanbad and the multipurpose building (marriage hall) situated near Kala Bhawan, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad to the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (Zila Parishad, Dhanbad).
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/AFR