State of
West Bengal & Ors Vs. Niranjan Singha
[2000] INSC 662 (14 December 2000)
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 13664 of 2000
S.R.Babu,
K.G.Balakrishna
L.I.T.J
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
Leave
granted.
The respondent
filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that under an agreement he
was appointed as an agent for collection of toll/taxes from vehicles plying
over Matangini Setu on the Haldia River at Nargat in the district of Midnapore
for one year from April
4, 1999 to April 3, 2000. The agreement between the parties
provided for a clause as follows :-
5.
After expiry of one year the term may be extended provided that one month
before expiry of such one year the agent shall by registered letter request the
Executive Engineer concerned for such extension and provided that payment upto
the date of such application have been received by the Executive Engineer
regularly and there have been no default of any of the terms and conditions
herein contained.
The
decision as to whether there has been any default or not on the part of the
agency shall rest with the Executive Engineer, and shall be binding on the
agent.
The
respondent requested the Executive Engineer concerned for extension of the
agency for a period of another one year in terms of clause 5 of the agreement
having complied with the conditions stated therein. The appellant having
invited fresh bids for appointment of the agent to collect toll or taxes
instead of extending the period of agency in favour of the respondent, a writ
petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court seeking for quashing of
the notification calling for fresh bids and to consider the representation of
the respondent for extension of the period of agency. The learned Single Judge
directed for consideration of the representation of the respondent. The
appellants took the stand that extension of period of agency is a matter of
discretion with them and not a matter of right with the respondent and rejected
the representation. Thereafter, the writ petition was allowed by upholding the
claim of the respondent for renewal of the agreement for another period of one
year and directed the concerned authorities to grant such renewal in his favour
from April 4, 2000 to April 3, 2001 subject to his compliance with the other
terms and conditions and other formalities required under the law. The matter
was carried in appeal to the Division Bench to contend that the discretion to
grant a fresh lease in pursuance of clause 5 of the agreement, to which we have
adverted to earlier, was left to the Executive Engineer concerned and there is
no right available to the respondent and further it was contended that the
learned Single Judge could not have granted the relief in favour of the
respondent. On behalf of the respondent the contention put forth before the
court was that clause 5 of the agreement entered into between the appellant and
the respondent, involved an element of legitimate expectation and
non-consideration of the same would amount to arbitrary exercise of the power
and, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in issuing the writ. The
Division Bench took the view that clause 5 of the agreement provided for
extension of the period of agency though not renewal, and inasmuch as the
conditions imposed in respect of such extension had been fulfilled, it was not
a case involving grant of a fresh agency but extension of the existing one and
relied upon a decision of this Court in Food Corporatiuon of India v. M/s Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries, 1993 (1) SCC 71, and upheld the order made by the
learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. We may notice that the distinction
sought to be made by the High Court that this is not a case involving grant of
a fresh agency but extension of the existing one does not make much sense.
An
extension of an agreement or renewal is granted on the expiry of the period of
the existing agreement. Either the extension or the renewal of the existing
agreement may be on the same terms or on different terms. If it is a case of
extension of the existing agreement on the same terms and conditions and such
consideration gives rise to a question of legitimate expectation being a part
of the concerned agreement, economic consideration of getting higher bid for the
same period would be a relevant consideration. If the Governmental authorities
had found that it would be feasible to have the agency, as in the present case,
on fresh terms by enhancing the amount payable to the Government, it would be a
relevant factor and in such a case it cannot be said that the legitimate
expectation of the respondent had been affected because the public interest
would out-weigh the extension of the period of the agreement. The doctrine of
legitimate expectation is only an aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution in
dealing with the citizens in a non- arbitrary manner and thus, by itself, does
not give rise to an enforceable right but in testing the action taken by the
Government authority whether arbitrary or otherwise it would be relevant. The
decision in Food Corporation of India v.
M/s Kamdhenu
Cattle Feed Industries (supra) does not lay down any principle which detracts
from what we have stated now. In a case where the agency is granted for
collection of toll or taxes, as in the present case, it can be easily discerned
that the claim of the respondent for extension of the period of the agency
would not come in the way of the Government if it is economically more
beneficial to have a fresh agreement by enhancing the consideration payable to
the Government. In such an event, it cannot be said that the action of the
Government inviting fresh bids is arbitrary. Moreover, the respondent can also
participate in the tender process and get his bid considered. Hence, we do not
think that the view taken by the High Court can be justified. We set aside the
order made by the Division Bench affirming the order of the learned single
Judge in the writ proceedings and dismiss the writ petition. However, it is
made clear that until fresh arrangements are made the terms upon which the
agency has been granted in favour of the respondent may continue. The appeal is
allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Back
