IMPORTANT POINT
When the decision to hold auction is not challenged and the bid was accepted, even under protest; the decision cannot be challenged afterwards.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails an order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna allowing Letters Patent Appeal No.1457 of 2009 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and declining to interfere with the order of the Collector dated 16.10.2008, auctioning Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat and direction to the appellant-society to deposit the balance bid amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- for the year 2008-2009 for settlement of the said ghat.

3. A public notice dated 16.10.2008 was issued by the Zonal Officer, Alauli for auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the year 2008-2009 in which Reserve Jama was fixed at 33,350/-. Three bidders had taken part in the auction, the highest bidder at Rs. 16,00,100/- by Sushil Kumar and that one Lalan Kumar and Shri Ram Bilash Yadav who also participated in the bid at Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- respectively. At the time of Dak, the appellant-society which was present there accepted the settlement under protest and deposited one third of the total bid amount. The appellant-society then prayed for recalling the open bid for the year 2008-2009 on the ground that the bid amount was very much higher and also to fix the amount only with fifteen percent increase of the previous years and for direction upon the respondent to adjust the amount deposited by it in the future instalment. Request of the appellant-society was declined; however, liberty was granted to the appellant-society that it can avail next two settlements for consecutive years at the same settlement amount without any further Jama or open bid.

4. The appellant-society then filed Writ Petition No.3646 of 2009 praying for quashing the order dated 16.10.2008 inviting open bid for settlement of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the period 2008-2009 through public auction. The appellant alleged that the bid amount was very much higher than the amount on which ghats were being settled for the previous years. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Khagaria observing that the persons who bid the amount were not really interested in taking the settlement and that the appellant-society had taken the ghat under protest. The learned Single Judge directed the authorities to re-consider the matter in the light of various circulars of the State Government. Being aggrieved, respondent-State of Bihar preferred appeal in LPA No.1457 of 2009 which was allowed by the Division Bench holding that the record revealed that every year the amount of bid has gone up and as such the court has no jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of fact with regard to the bid amount and that it was for the appellant-society to work out its remedies before the appropriate forum.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-society Mr. Subhro Sanyal submitted that bid amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- for which the ghat was settled is arbitrary and is very much on the higher side than the standardized revision by fifteen percent of the amount over and above the amount fixed in previous years and hence the respondents are obligated to re-fix the amount. It was contended that the appellant-society had accepted the bid only under protest and the Division Bench failed to consider the fact that the appellant-society had reserved its right to challenge the public auction Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat by Circle Officer, Alauli and deposit of one third amount under protest does not amount to acquiescence and waiver of appellant's legal right.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shivam Singh contended that the Circle Officer, Alauli not only accepted the recommendation of the District Level Committee rather he has acted as per the direction of the Government letter to go through open evaluation process in order to augment the revenue of the State. The respondents further contended that the appellant-society took the settlement of the ghat o