IMPORTANT POINT
For applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit it has to be shown that any party has been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court.

Headnote:Cantonment Act- Section 60- Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit-Scope and applicability of- Appeal challenging the judgment passed by High Court wherein it held that respondents would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them over and above the bid given by them- Appellant Cantonment Board, was directed to dispose of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for refund- Held High Court had completely misunderstood maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit and had committed an error in applying it to the facts of the instant case- For applying the maxim, it had to be shown that any party had been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court- No prejudice found to have been caused to respondents- If the High Court had decided to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the 5th respondent, ordinarily, it could have stayed whole process thereby depriving the first and the second respondents of their rights to collect the toll tax on the basis of their bid in the tender-However, the High Court did not want to stop the process of tax collection-The tax had to be collected since the Notification imposing the tax was intact - Then it was a question as to at what rates should the rights to collect toll tax be leased out and to whom- Respondent No.5-petitioner 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-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thus got into this arrangement with open eyes- Nobody could even think that respondents would unnecessarily suffer losses for matching and exceeding the offer made by 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 5th respondent and exceeding the same by Rs.6,000/- per day-They entered into this arrangement with absolutely open eyes- Even ultimately, the petition was not dismissed as being a merit less petition-Respondent No.5 chose not to press the petition in view of the fact that a fresh auction was ordered by appellant perhaps because higher authorities did not choose to give sanction for all this exercise by appellant- Hence , there was no question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 suffering any prejudice because of the interim order passed by High Court- They were welcome not to make any offers- All that would have happened was that respondent No.5 would have then acquired the rights to collect the toll tax and not the respondent Nos.1 and 2.-But they did not want to lose their right to collect the toll tax and it is with this idea that they matched the offer of respondent No.5 and exceeded it by Rs.6,000/- per day- There was, thus, no question of any prejudice having been suffered by respondent Nos.1 and 2-High Court’s order held unsustainable and set aside -Held that Cantonment Board would not be liable to refund anything in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who had enjoyed the rights of collection of toll on the basis of their own voluntary offer made before High Court which High Court had merely accepted by its order dated 08.11.2006.-Appeal allowed (Paras 11 to 15)
       Facts of the Case :
        Correct scope and applicability of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit fell for consideration in this appeal. Present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment passed by High Court wherein it held that respondents would be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them over and above the bid given by them. Appellant Cantonment Board, was directed to dispose of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for refund.
       Findings of the Court :
        High Court had completely misunderstood maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit and had committed an error in applying it to the facts of the instant case. For applying the maxim, it had to be shown that any party had been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court. No prejudice was found to have been caused to respondents. If the High Court had decided to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the 5th respondent, ordinarily, it could have stayed whole process thereby depriving the first and the second respondents of their rights to collect the toll tax on the basis of their bid in the tender.However, the High Court did not want to stop the process of tax collection. The tax had to be collected since the Notification imposing the tax was intact. Then it was a question as to at what rates should the rights to collect toll tax be leased out and to whom. Respondent No.5-petitioner 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. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thus got into this arrangement with open eyes. Nobody could even think that respondents would unnecessarily suffer losses for matching and exceeding the offer made by 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 5th respondent and exceeding the same by Rs.6,000/- per day.They entered into this arrangement with absolutely open eyes. Even ultimately, the petition was not dismissed as being a merit less petition.Respondent No.5 chose not to press the petition in view of the fact that a fresh auction was ordered by appellant perhaps because higher authorities did not choose to give sanction for all this exercise by appellant. Hence , there was no question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 suffering any prejudice because of the interim order passed by High Court. They were welcome not to make any offers.All that would have happened was that respondent No.5 would have then acquired the rights to collect the toll tax and not the respondent Nos.1 and 2.But they did not want to lose their right to collect the toll tax and it is with this idea that they matched the offer of respondent No.5 and exceeded it by Rs.6,000/- per Day. There was, thus, no question of any prejudice having been suffered by respondent Nos.1 and 2.High Court’s order was held unsustainable and set aside .Held that Cantonment Board would not be liable to refund anything in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who had enjoyed the rights of collection of toll on the basis of their own voluntary offer made before High Court which High Court had merely accepted by its order dated 08.11.2006.Appeal allowed
       Result : Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Correct scope and applicability of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit falls for consideration 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. 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. Cantonment Board, the appellant herein has been directed to dispose of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for refund expeditiously. Needless to say, in the light of the observation made by the High Court favouring the refund of amount, few facts would be necessary.

3. Under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, the Cantonment Board was empowered to impose toll tax. Accordingly, on 08.01.2005, a Gazette Notification was issued for the imposition of the toll tax on such commercial motor vehicles passing through the Meerut Cantonment.

4. 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 commercial 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 collect toll tax upon the entry of the commercial motor vehicles in the territorial limits of Meerut. Twenty persons submitted their tenders in response to the notice inviting tenders whereupon the tender submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein jointly came to be accepted. The highest offer by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the collection between 01.10.2005 to 04.10.2006 was for 3,57,30,000/-. This was challenged by one Gajraj Singh. Earlier, validity of the imposition of tax on the commercial vehicles by the Cantonment Board was challenged by the Civil Writ Petition Tax No.1601 of 2005. That Writ Petition was allowed and the High Court quashed the Notification dated 08.01.2005. 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 collect toll tax remaining intact.

5. The appellant, therefore, issued a fresh Notification inviting tenders, on 14.09.2006. By this, the contract for collection of tolls for the period of one year w.e.f 05.10.2006 to 04.10.2007 was advertised. 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. This was approved by the appellant vide its resolution No.229 dated 29.09.2006. 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. A Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.5 being Writ Petition No.60135 of 2006 claiming therein a Writ of Mandamus commanding the appellant herein to start the process of holding fresh auction or tenders for letting out the rights to collect toll tax from the commercial motor vehicles passing through the territorial limits of Meerut Cantonment by issuing advertisement within the stipulated time. 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 collection of toll tax.

6. Ordinarily, this Writ Petition should never have been entertained. However, it was actually entertained and the High Court at the time of passing the orders on the application for stay found that though respondent No.5 was willing to pay Rs.1,25,000/- per day for the right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 121

2010 (1) Supreme 732SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV.S. Sirpurkar and DR. Mukund Akam Sharma, JJ.Cantonment Board, Meerut & Anr. — AppellantsversusK.P. Singh & Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No._1091__of 2010(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11462 of 2007)Decided on : 01-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT For applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit it has to be shown that any party has been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court.

Cases Referred (2)

2010 (1) Supreme 732
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and DR. Mukund Akam Sharma, JJ.
Cantonment Board, Meerut & Anr. — Appellants
versus
K.P. Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No._1091__of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11462 of 2007)
Decided on : 01-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
For applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit it has to be shown that any party has been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court.