Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arvind Shrivastava vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 2019
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6012/2019
Arvind Shrivastava S/o Shri Jagdamba Lal Shrivastava, Aged
About 49 Years, Resident Of B-609, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines And Geology, Government Of
Rajasthan, Udaipur.
3. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Udaipur.
4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Amet
Dist. Rajsamand
5. Sr. Manager, Mstc Ltd., Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Vyas & Mr. Arvind Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 06/05/2019 Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-
(1) the respondents may kindly be directed to furnish all relevant documents pertaining to the e-auction dated 27.02.2019 before this Hon'ble Court; and (2) the respondents may also further be directed to finalize the petitioner's e-auction dated 27.02.2019 declaring him to be the highest bidder and consequently, they may further be directed to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner.
(3) The respondents may further be kindly directed to not to grant Letter of Intent to any other person than the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:58:39 AM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6012/2019] It is, inter-alia, averred in the petition that respondent- Department issued an advertisement dated 30.01.2019 inviting on-line applications for e-auctioning of mining plots in different Districts of Rajasthan, as per provisions of Chapter-III of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The task of e- auction process was entrusted to respondent No.5. Pursuant to advertisement, petitioner being eligible also submitted his on-line application with other bidders and the e-auction was processed on 27.02.2019. The petitioner submitted his bid for mining area of Amet in Rajsamand, pertaining to Plot No.47, mentioned at Item No.39 in the e-auction notice.
Precise contention of the petitioner is that his bid was highest but respondent without finalizing the same has issued fresh advertisement for the plot in question by way of corrigendum dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.2). Petitioner is essentially harping on the fact that once his bid was found to be highest, the respondents ought to have allotted him the plot in question for mining and therefore Annex.2 merits annulment.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record including Annex.2.
The law is trite that if someone has participated in auction and has offered highest bid then even acceptance of bid cannot furnish an omnipotent right in its favour for grant of allotment/contract and it is always open for the competent authority to issue advertisement afresh and even reject the highest bid. In the instant case, the reasons for issuance of (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:58:39 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-6012/2019] corrigendum and inviting fresh online applications vis-a-vis disputed plots are clearly spelt out by citing technical error of server viz plots shown at Item Nos.39 and 40 of the advertisement (Annex.1).
In view thereof, in my opinion, by issuing Annex.2, the respondents have not committed any illegality, which can be made subject-matter of judicial review in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
Consequently, the petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA),J 130-Bharti/-
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:58:39 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)