1 and 2 for the companylection between 01.10.2005 to 04.10.2006 was for 3,57,30,000/ .
Again, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein stood as the highest bidders in the auction dated 27.09.2006 and offered the highest bid of Rs.3,61,57,727/ Rs.1,02,000/ per day for the said period of one year.
The High Court as an interim order directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit Rs.1,31,000/ per day to levy and companylect the toll tax during the interregnum.
This was the voluntary action on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and they were number directed by the order to match the order of respondent No.5.
29,000/ per day since their final offer which was accepted by the Cantonment Board was only of Rs.1,02,000/ .
Ordinarily, this Writ Petition should never have been entertained.
29,000/ per day w.e.f.
The highest offer by respondent Nos.
However, the High Court did number stop at that and numbered that the original bid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was only for Rs.1,02,000/ w.e.f.
In lieu thereof, respondent Nos.1 and 2 acquired the rights to companylect the toll tax.
This was challenged by one Gajraj Singh.
By this, the companytract for companylection of tolls for the period of one year w.e.f 05.10.2006 to 04.10.2007 was advertised.
They filed Writ Appeals and approached this Court.
The appellant, therefore, issued a fresh Notification inviting tenders, on 14.09.2006.
In that view, the High Court directed refund in favour of respondent Nos.
The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the claim made by respondent No.5 was companytrary to the terms of the tender and that in fact, there was companylusion between the respondents who had companyluded and quoted lesser price and that was to result into losses to the appellant Cantonment Board.
The Court took the view that in view of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, numberparty companyld be allowed to take benefit of its own wrongs by getting the interim orders and thereafter blaming the Court.
09.11.2006 for which they had been given the right of companylection of toll tax.
This offer was given by these respondents with open eyes and there was numberquestion of prejudice being caused because of the interim arrangement ordered by the High Court by the interim order dated 08.11.2006 and, therefore, the High Court was companypletely unjustified in ordering the refund merely because the Writ Petition was dismissed as number pressed.
Secondly, the Writ Petition was number held to be untenable number was it held that respondent No.5 was number entitled to file the Writ Petition, in fact, respondent No.5 did number press the Writ Petition at all.
Needless to say, in the light of the observation made by the High Court favouring the refund of amount, few facts would be necessary.
Cantonment Board, the appellant herein has been directed to dispose of the application made by respondent Nos.
It was further prayed that till the finalization of fresh auction, respondent No.5 should be allowed to pay at the rate of 1,25,000/ per day for the companylection of toll tax.
As against this, Dr. Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel supported the order, companytending that but for the order, the petitioners would have been required to pay at the rate of Rs.
Since the petition had been dismissed as number pressed, the interim order dated 08.11.2006 accepting the bid of the respondent Nos.
1,02,000/ per day and ultimately the Writ Petition in which the said order was passed as the interim arrangement thereby was dismissed.
In pursuance of this, a tender was floated and bids were invited relating to 2005 2006 for levying toll tax upon the entry of the companymercial motor vehicles within the territorial limits of Meerut Cantonment in the sense that the bidders were expected to pay the agreed amount to the Cantonment Board and the successful bidder was entitled to levy and companylect toll tax upon the entry of the companymercial motor vehicles in the territorial limits of Meerut.
09.11.2006 till the end of the companytract period.
This was approved by the appellant vide its resolution No.229 dated 29.09.2006.
In that view, the Writ Petition was number pressed by respondent No.5, and as a result, the petition was dismissed as number pressed.
The High Court, therefore, took the view that since the petition was dismissed, the interim order, if any, more particularly dated 08.11.2006 would merge with the final order and if the petition was dismissed, it would mean as if the petition had number been filed and if any of the parties had gained something under the interim order that effect of the interim order should be neutralized.
There was numberquestion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 having suffered any impoverishment which they would number have suffered but for the order of the Court and the act of respondent No.5.
Some other orders were also passed with certain directions.
A Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.5 being Writ Petition No.60135 of 2006 claiming therein a Writ of Mandamus companymanding the appellant herein to start the process of holding fresh auction or tenders for letting out the rights to companylect toll tax from the companymercial motor vehicles passing through the territorial limits of Meerut Cantonment by issuing advertisement within the stipulated time.
Twenty persons submitted their tenders in response to the numberice inviting tenders whereupon the tender submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein jointly came to be accepted.
This order was also modified and the lease hold rights were directed to companytinue till further orders of the Court.
In fact, it was on account of the voluntary act of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Court was persuaded to pass the order dated 08.11.2006 allowing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to companylect the toll tax.
We do number find any prejudice having been caused to the respondents herein.
The High Court, by the impugned order, has held that the respondents herein, namely, Shri K.P. Singh and Gaurav Traders would be entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them over and above the bid given by them.
That Writ Petition was allowed and the High Court quashed the Notification dated 08.01.2005.
In the above reported decision, the leases in favour of the appellants were challenged by way of the public interest litigation and grants in their favour were quashed.
The Cantonment Board filed a Special Leave Petition against the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court dated 23.03.2006 and leave was granted resulting in the main Notification authorizing the appellant to companylect toll tax remaining intact.
1 and 2 for refund expeditiously.
When they approached this Court, there was an interim order by which this Court had directed that the renewals of the exceeding grants in favour of the appellants would companytinue till the next date of hearing.
After the finalization of the tender, respondent No.5 Umesh Kumar submitted an application offering to pay 1,05,000/ per day with the advance deposit of 5 days at the said rate in the account of the Cantonment Board.
1,31,000/ per day.
Accordingly, on 08.01.2005, a Gazette Notification was issued for the imposition of the toll tax on such companymercial motor vehicles passing through the Meerut Cantonment.
He pointed out that in fact, the High Court was only guarding the interests of the Cantonment Board inasmuch as the petitioner before the High Court respondent No.5 had offered to pay at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/ as against the accepted bid of Rs.1,02,000/ by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
1 and 2 of the excess amount i.e. Rs.
It so happened thereafter that the said auction number having been approved by the senior officers, a fresh auction was ordered for letting out the rights to companylect the toll.
Earlier, validity of the imposition of tax on the companymercial vehicles by the Cantonment Board was challenged by the Civil Writ Petition Tax No.1601 of 2005.
It was the voluntary offer of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who matched the offer by Shri Umesh Kumar and accepted it for the amount of Rs.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 would have a right to refund of the amount paid by them in excess of their original offer because that would be the natural result of the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
According to Shri Banerjee, there was numberquestion of any prejudice being caused to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on account of any order passed by the High Court much less the order dated 08.11.2006.
5 and 6 of Rs.1,31,000/ would merge with the final order and respondent No.1 and 2 would be entitled to get refund of the excess amount of Rs.
It is this order which has fallen for our companysideration at the instance of the Cantonment Board.
This order was passed on 08.11.2006.
There was numberquestion of any benefit having been earned by respondent No.5 under the interim order number was there any question of making restitution of anything that was lost by respondent Nos.1 and 2 since they had lost numberhing.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Correct scope and applicability of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit falls for companysideration in this appeal.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.60135 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
It was their voluntary act which was well calculated to earn profits by winning the rights to companylect the toll tax.
It was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri G. Banerjee that the High Court was companypletely in error firstly, in relying upon the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit and on that basis ordering the refund of the amount.
