LexCANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ANR. versus K.P. SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 269 CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ANR. v. K.P. SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 2010) FEBRUARY 01, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Tender- Toll tax - Collection of- Respondent nos.1 and A B 2 made highest bid of Rs. 1. 02 lakhs per day - Bid approved C - Challenge by Respondent no. 5 - He filed writ petition - Offered to pay 1.25 lakhs per day- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 suo motu offerred to pay Rs.1.31 lakhs per day, pursuant · to which, the High Court, vide interim order, directed /' respondent nos.1 and 2 to deposit Rs.1.31 lakhs per diiy for D the right to collect toll tax - Writ petition ultimately dismissed being.not pressed by respondent no.5 - High Court held that since the petition was dismissed, the interim order would merge with the final order and, relying upon maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit': it directed refund of Rs. 29, 0001- E (Rs. 1.31 lakhs less Rs.1.02 lakhs) per day in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 - On appeal, held: Appellant was not liable to refund anything in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 who enjoyed rights of collection of toll tax on basis of their own voluntary offer made before_ th§J High Court which the High F Court merely accepted by its interim order - Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" was not applicable since respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not suffer any prejudice which they would not have suffered but for the interim order of the High Court and the act of respondent no. 5 - Maxims - Maxim G "actus curiae ·neminem gravabit" - Inapplicability of. Appellant Cantonment Board floated tender for letting out the rights to collect toll tax from the 269 H \ 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A commercial motor vehicles passing through the territorial limits of the Meerut Cantonment for the period 5-10-2006 to 4-10-2007. Respondent nos.1 and 2 offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,02,000/- per day which was approved. This was challenged by respondent no.5. He filed writ petition B before the High Court praying for a mandamus to the appellant to float fresh tender alongwith a further prayer that till finalization of the fresh tender, he be allowed to pay at the rate of 1,25,000/- per day for the right to collect toll tax. On this, respondent nos.1 and 2 suo motu made c an offer to pay Rs.1,31,000/- per day, pursuant to which, the High Court, vide interim order dated 8-11-2006, directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to deposit Rs.1,31,000/ - per day for the right to collect toll tax. Respondent No.5 chose not to press the writ petition D as in the meanwhile fresh tender was ordered by the appellant for letting out the rights to collect toll tax. The High Court dismissed the petition as not pressed and held that since the petition was dismissed, the interim order dated 8-11-2006 would merge with the final order E and if any of the parties had gained something under the interim order that effect of the interim order shall be neutralized. By applying the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', the High Court held that since the final offer of respondent nos.1 and 2 which was accepted F by the appellant was only of Rs.1,02,000/- per day, they would be entitled to get refund of the excess amount of Rs.29,000/- (Rs.1,31,000/- less Rs.1,02,000/-) per day. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the G High Court erred in relying upon the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit 11 and on that basis ordering the refund. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court completely H misunderstood the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ANR. v. K.P. 271 SINGH & ORS. and committed an error in applying it to the facts of the A present case. For applying the maxim, it has to be shown that a party has been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court, but herein no prejudice was caused to the respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent no.5 had made an offer of Rs.1,25,000/- per day. This offer was matched by respondent nos.1 and 2 by raising the bid to Rs.1,31,000/- per day. Surely respondent nos.1 and 2 got into this arrangement with the open eyes. Nobody can even think that they would unnecessarily suffer losses B for matching and exceeding the offer made by c respondent no.5, after all they were doing business and they would certainly not be interested in suffering the losses by matching the offer made by respondent no.5 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.