Under Rule 19 a , the acceptance of the bid by the companyducting Officer is subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer, and Rule 19 b provides that he must, in doing so, ,consider among others whether the Officer companyducting the sale has taken into account and companysidered all the factors mentioned in Rule 19 above.
On January 23, 1961, the Executive Engineer, Colaghat, put up the lease of the ferry for the year 1961 62 for public auction under s.8 of the Act.
of the ferry at Neperpatty on the second respondent, Phuka Chandra Gohain, on January 23, 1961 was in accordance with the provisions of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878.
The learned Judges accepted this companytention and set aside the settlement in favour of the second respondent as violative of s.8 and Rule 19, and further declared that the first respondent was entitled to the settlement under Rule 19 as the highest bidder.
The Chief Engineer approved of the decision of the executive Engineer dated January 23, 1961, and the sale to the second respondent was company firmed.
226 attacking the Order of the Executive Engineer dated January 23, 1961, settling the lease in favour of the second respondent as companytrary to the Act and the Rules, and praying that it might be settled on him.
The Executive Engineer then made the following Order Sold to Shri Phukan Chandra Gohain at Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 11, 1961, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No.
Section 8, provides that the Officer companyducting the sale may, for reasons recorded in writing, refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder and accept any other bid.
By his Order dated April 7, 1961, the Chief Engineer rejected this petition.
Thereupon, on February 6,1961, the first respondent applied to the Chief Engineer for accepting his bid and settling the ferry on him.
On May 9, 1961, the first respondent filed in the High, Court of Assam a writ Petition under Art.
14 of 1962.
Under Rule 19, the sale should generally be by auction to the highest bidder and under this provision the ferry should numbermally have been settled with the first respondent, who gave the highest bid.
At the auction, Tulsi Singh, the first respondent, gave a bid for Rs.
3,000/ Rupees Three thousand only as the two other highest bidders fall in special List.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
64 of 1961.
hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the rules framed thereunder.
It is against this Judgment that this appeal by special leave is directed.
4,050/ and Phukan Chandra Gobain, the second respondent for Rs.
March 1.
4,200/ , one Indra Deo Singh for Rs.
Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
In Verappa Pillai v. Raman Raman Ltd. 1 the question srose with, reference to the grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The respondent did number appear.
3,000/ .
