Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 December, 2021
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CW-16538/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16538/2018
Sukha Ram S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Thadiya, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur.
3. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur
4. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology
Department, Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 13/12/2021 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming for the following reliefs:-
"By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 (Annex.6) debarring the petitioner from participating in the E-Auction for 5 years may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant mining lease to the petitioner in respect of the Plot no.11 situated at Fatehgarh, Dechu, District Jodhpur."
The present controversy is arising out of e-auction notice issued for mining lease in respect of plot no.11 situated at Fatehgarh, Dechu, District Jodhpur on 24.04.2018. (Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:56:31 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-16538/2018] Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being highest bidder submitted a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,82,000/- alongwith all documents on 22.06.2018, thus, his claim for the auction of minor mineral ought to have been accepted.
Counsel for the petitioner harps on payment in-time on the strength of the rejoinder filed.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 14 (14) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2017 provides procedure for black listing.
Rule 14 (14) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2017 reads as follows:-
"(14) The Director after debarring the bidder may blacklist the bidder for participating in future auctions for a period of five years after giving him a fifteen day's notice."
Counsel for the respondent submits that on 08.06.2018 the petitioner was informed about being successful bidder for the e-auction and, therefore, it was mandatory for him to deposit the 40% of amount of bid within a period of 15 days and the petitioner had not deposited the same within a period of 15 days.
Counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 14(10) (11) (13) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 envisages such mandatory compliance within a period of 15 days.
Rule 14(10) (11) (13) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017:-
"(10) After declaration of successful bidder, the successful bidder shall deposit the first installment being twenty five percent of the minimum guaranteed premium within fifteen days of completion of auction process and the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned shall send proposal to the competent authority. (11) If successful bidder fails to deposit the first installment mentioned in sub-rule (10), bid security deposited shall be forfeited and shall be (Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:56:31 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-16538/2018] debarred for five years in participating in further e-auction. In such case, a counter offer shall be given to the second highest bidder (H2), third highest bidder(H3) etc. in serial order to match the highest bid submitted by the successful bidder. In this process, no negotiation shall be done.
(13) The Director after recording reasons in writing may debar the bidder of participating in e-auction due to any of the following reasons, namely;-
(i) where the successful bidder does not deposits installment/s of offered premium amount, security deposit, performance security, dead rent or annual license fee of the mineral concession or fails to execute mining lease:
(ii) where the bidder is found to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice during the auction process, or after the grant or execution of the mineral concession and there are sufficient reasons to believe that the bidder or his employee has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud, vitiating fair auction process; and
(iii) where the bidder or his partner or his representative is found guilty of misbehavior with any officer or official of the Government connected with the mineral concession directly or indirectly; and
(iv) where the bidder or his partner or his representative has been convicted by a court of law offence involving moral turpitude arising out of the auction of mineral concession."
Counsel for the respondent submits that cheque itself was not submitted alongwith documents as he has taken a categorical stand in his reply that photocopy of cheque was submitted and thereafter after a passage of 15 days, some cash was deposited through e-transfer on 29.06.2018.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was highest bidder in e-auction for the mining lease dated 24.04.2018. It is admitted that the communication upon (Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:56:31 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-16538/2018] him of being successful bidder was made to the petitioner on 08.06.2018 (Annex.2).
The petitioner's submission that a cheque was given to them and it was not the duty of respondents to encash it does not induce confidence of this Court as there is a clear stand of the State that the documents carried only photocopy of cheque and, thus, mandatory requirement of Rule 14(10) whereby the petitioner was required to submit the requisite amount of bid within a period of 15 days has not been complied with. Since there is a failure of compliance of Rule 14(10) on behalf of the petitioner, it is obvious that his bid has to fail and the order passed by the Authority, thus, conforms to the parameters of Rule 14(11) &(13) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. This Court is also conscious of the information given by the respondents that in accordance with procedure laid down, Letter of Intent (LOI) has been already been issued to second bidder as the interim order was only a restriction for fresh auction, which is not envisaged at this stage.
As far as prayer regarding black listing of petitioner and debarring him for five years is concerned; on being asked, counsel for the respondents made his submission regarding conduct of the petitioner but could not show from record regarding issuance of any notice to the petitioner in conformity with Rule 14 for blacklisting.
The writ petition, thus, is partly allowed and the impugned order 04.09.2018 (Annex.6) stands quashed qua black-listing of the respondents in pursuance of Rule 14(14) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 for lack of notice. It is needless to say that in case any proceedings have to drawn, then (Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:56:31 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-16538/2018] in accordance with Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order.
The stay petition, 226(3) application alongwith applications no.01/20 & 01/21 for early listing all stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
55-nirmala/Sanjay-
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:56:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)