The court upheld the decision of the government to cancel the allotment but directed compensation for the petitioners' investments and their participation in the fresh auction process.

JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned AAG-13 for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed against the office order dated 23.06.2020 contained in Memo No. 673 passed by the Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Dissolved), Patna under the Agriculture Department of the State of Bihar by which the allotment made in their favour of the spaces/buildings in the campus of the Agriculture Marketing Board (Dissolved), Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea has been cancelled and the petitioners have been asked to vacate the premises with immediate effect.

3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that without any reason and without communicating such reasons to the petitioners, the order of allotment and the agreement with the petitioners had been rescinded.

4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State in which it has been stated that after coming into the force of the Repeal Act, 2006, the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, stood dissolved and the assets and liabilities vested in the State Government in the Department of Agriculture. An Administrator of the Board was appointed.

5. On an application made by one Mukesh Jaisawal before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Purnea on 26.12.2019, requesting the building in question to be permitted to be repaired by him and to be used after giving fair rent to be fixed by the authorities, the request was allowed and all such applicants who had requested for allotment of Employees Quarters, Guard Rooms, Guest Houses, Check Posts and other buildings in the campus of the Agriculture Board of Purnea were let out. Before doing that, by virtue of an agreement, the allottees were directed to undertake the work of repair and maintenance and also to pay fair rent which would be fixed by the authorities. This was on the asking of the applicants including the petitioners. The decision to let out the buildings had the approval of the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar.

6. The petitioners claim that by virtue of the agreement with them, they paid the rent fixed for the premises and also invested reasonable amount of money in the repairs as the buildings allotted to them were not in habitable condition.

7. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, on review of the records and the file, found that the resolution of the Government contained in Memo No. 566 dated 23.12.2016 delineating the process and the method by which the buildings could be let out to persons in general, had not been followed but had been breached completely. According to Clause 4(I) and 5(V) of the aforesaid resolution, it was incumbent upon the Special Officer to allot the buildings only by way of public auction and notice of such auction was required to be published in two local dailies having circulation in the area. Since the aforesaid conditions were not fulfilled, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, on review of the relevant files, found it appropriate to cancel the agreement with the allottees including the petitioners.

8. Mr. Srivastava, learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that when the allotment was made to them and an agreement was entered into, it was with the approval of the departmental Secretary and the petitioners had no role to play except for making a request by way of an application which was accepted by the Administrator. Even if the rules were bypassed, the petitioners at least were required to be noticed, explaining the reasons why even after payment of the rental fixed by the authorities, the agreement was being cancelled midway. The petitioners also lamented that without giving any prior notice, a decision to ask the allottees to vacate the premises was taken and some of them were also dispossessed in haste.

9. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners had approached this Court.

10. An Interlocutory Applicatio