1,20,000/ for two years as was done in the previous order which was accepted by the first respondent on September 2, 1995.
THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik S. Chauhan and Anil Karnwal, Advs.
When the petitioner had challenged the legality thereof, the High Court in W.P.No.
31606 of 1995 by order dated August 27, 1996 treating the grant of companytract to the petitioner as an extension of the previous grant, held that the first respondent was devoid of power to extend the lease without obtaining prior permission of the State Government.
for the Petitioner O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R The petitioner, admittedly, had made a bid in the auction for the year 1993 94, companyducted on February 25, 1993 for a sum of Rs.
Thus, this special leave petition.
On subsequent instructions, the first respondent had cancelled the grant of the lease to the petitioner by his proceedings dated October 28, 1995.
Consequently, for the years 1995 97, instead of companyducting fresh auction, on an application made by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer had recommended to grant lease to the petitioner for the same amount of Rs.
1,20,000/ per annum.
The said bid companyld number be worked out for the reason that the previous companytractor had approached the High Court and had the operation of the companytract stayed which period expired by efflux of time.
