The Chairman of the District Board cannot arbitrarily disqualify individuals from bidding at a public auction for ferry tolls under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. Such disqualification violates the statutory procedure for conducting the auction and deprives individuals of their right to bid.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. In this ease, we are concerned with the lease of the tolls of twenty-five ferries. Petitioner Jagat Singh has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the settlement of the tolls of the disputed ferries with Ramphal Singh, opposite party No. 3, and commanding the District Board, Patna, opposite party No. 2, to hold a fresh public auction according to law.

2. The ferries in question have been declared by the State Government to be public ferries under Sec. 6, Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 . By virtue of the powers conferred on it under Sec.35 of the Act, the State Government has vested the management of the disputed ferries in the District Board, Patna, which consequently has all the powers vested in the Magistrate of the District under (Ms Act except the powers specified in Sections 7, 17 and 32. Accordingly, the Chairman of the District Board leases the tolls of these ferries by public auction.

These femes had been settled for one year 1954-55 for Rs. 66,000/-. The Chairman announce ed by notification in the official gazette that the lease of the ferries in question for the year 1955-56 would be made by public, auction at 2 P. M. on 22-3-1955, in the meeting hall of the District Board. The conditions imposed by the advertisement wore that (i) intending bidders would deposit as security one-fourth of the last year lease-money;

(ii) the contractors of the District Board who were in arrears were disqualified to bid;

(iii) the auction sale would be cancelled if the bidder would he found unreliable; and

(iv) the Chairman was not bound to accept the highest bid.

The petitioner wanted to bid at the public auction, and in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, he deposited Rs. 16,500/-, being one-fourth of the amount of the preceding settlement in the District Board office as security money. The deposit of the security money was accepted by the Chairman. It is alleged that on the date of the auction sale, the petitioner was forbidden by the Chairman to bid at the auction on the ground that his relations were fighting cases with Rampal Singh and others, the present threadars of the District Board.

The petitioner made a representation to the Chairman challenging the correctness of those allegations and characterising them as false and baseless, but the Chairman refused to re-consider his order and did net permit the petitioner to bid at the auction. With the petitioner left out, there were only two bidders at the auction, including opposite party No. 3. The latter offered the highest bid of Rs. 35,000/-, and the lease was knocked down in his favour.

The petitioner asserts that the Bengal Perries Act and the rules made thereunder imposed no restrictions on any member of the public intending to bid and complying with the conditions precedent to the making of the bid; and that the order of the chairman prohibiting him from taking part in the bid was null and. void and without jurisdiction, and that the Chairman contravened the provision of Section 9 of the Act in debarring him from bidding at the auction.

On these allegations the petitioner has moved this Court for the grant of a writ of certiorari quashing the said order of the Chairman and also a writ of mandamus directing him to make a fresh settlement by public auction according to law.

3. It is admitted that the tolls of the disputed ferries were advertised to be leased by public auction at 2 P. M. on 22-3-1955. It is further admitted that in pursuance of the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner deposited Rs. 16,500.00 as security money. There is further no dispute that this deposit of the security money was accepted by the Chairman of the District Board, Patna. It is also the. admitted case of the parties that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the notification for settlement of the ferries.

It is also admitted that on the date appointed f