RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL versus THE COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 04-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 4, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
UP. Toll Tax Regulations, Levy and Collection Rules, 1980: 
Rules 4, 7,8 and 9-Collection of tolls-Lease-Grant of-Subsequent 
C cancellation-Validity of-Held: Commissioner devoid of any power to 
accept any bid for previous years which expired by efflux of time, except in 
the manner prescribed-Therefore the action of the Commissioner was one 
without jurisdiction and hence a nullity-Government was right in directing 
the Commissioner to have the order granting the lease cancelled-Hence 
no interference called for. 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 21020 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.96 of the Allahaoad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 31606of1995. 
K.S. Chuahan and Anil Kamwal for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
The petitioner, admittedly, had made a bid in the auction for the 
year 1993-94, conducted on February 25, 1993 for a sum of Rs. I ,20,000 
per annum. The said bid. could not be worked out for the reason that the 
previous contractor had approached the High Court and had the operation 
of the contract stayed which period expired by effiux of time. Consequently, 
for the years 1995-97, instead of conducting fresh auction, on an application 
G made by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer had recommended to grant 
lease to the petitioner for the same amount of Rs. 1,20,000 for two years 
as was done in the previous order which was accepted by the first respondent 
on September 2, 1995. On subsequent instructions, the first respondent 
had cancelled the grant of the lease to the petitioner by his proceedings 
dated October 28, 1995. When the petitioner had challenged the legality 
H thereof, the High Court in W.P. No.31606of1995 by order dated August 
380 
R.K. KARANWAL v. COMMNR. 
381 
27, 1996 treating the grant of contract to the petitioner as an extension of A 
the previous grant, held that the first respondent was devoid of power to 
extend the lease without obtaining prior permission of the State 
Government. Thus, this special leave petition. 
It is contended by Mr. K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the 
petitioner, that the first respondent having granted the lease for the years B 
1995-97, had no power to cancel the same under Rule 7 of the U.P. Toll 
Tax Regulations Levy and Collection Rules, 1980 (for short, "the Rules") 
which gives absolute power to the Commissioner under Rule 7 thereof. 
Therefore, without any power to review his own order, the Commissioner 
is devoid of power to cancel the same. We find no force in the contention. 
Even assuming that the view taken by the High Court is not sound 
in law, since it is a fresh grant, the ultimate decision can be rested 
on the following circumstances. Rules 4,7,8 and 9 of the Rules reads as 
under: 
c 
"4. 
Procedure for grantoflease---ln accordance with the provision D 
of Section 2-C of the Act. 
(i) 
The Governor or his nominee may invite auction bids 
from the persons desirous of taking lease for the collection 
of the tolls levied on the bridge specified in the notification E 
issued by the Government. 
(ii) 
The Governor or his nominee shall scrutinize the 
auction bids and verify the status any other particulars 
submitted by the applicants and after examining the 
documents or papers submitted by the applicants shall prepare F 
a list of the suitable candidate to whom the lease contract 
may be granted. 
(iii) 
If it is considered necessary the Governor or his 
nominee may call any bidders for negotiations. 
G 
(iv) 
The Governor or his nominee presently the Divisional 
Commissioner, will select any person out of the list of the 
bidders and may order that the said person contractor shall 
be granted lease in respect of the right to collect tolls on the 
specified road bridge. 
H 
382 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
7. 
F 
G 
8. 
9. 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
(v) 
The Governor, if it considers necessary, in public 
interest may put to public auction the lease of the right to 
collect tolls on any specified road bridge. Such public auction 
shall be held after giving prior notice in important newspapers 
by the authorised officer by giving a minimum notice of one 
month in the first instance. If such occasion arises which 
makes the tenders/auction to be re-invited redone a similar 
notice of one month of the public auction may be issue

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.