Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dungar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/016625) on 23 May, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/016625] (1 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3570/2023
Dungar Ram S/o Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Sutharo Ka Bass, Rajpuriya, Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Through Authorized Person Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Gopa Ram
Solanki, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 56, Balaji Nagar, Salawas
Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Addl. Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department,
Udaipur Zone, Opposite Roadways Workshop, Sector 13,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv. & AAG
assisted by Mr. Nishant Bapna
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 23/05/2023
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following prayers:-
"A]. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 18.01.2023 (Annex.06) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B]. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be direct to allow the petitioner to (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM) [2023/RJJD/016625] (2 of 5) [CW-3570/2023] deposit the rest of amount which he has made an efforts to deposit the amount on 10.01.2023 through e-challan. C]. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the e- auction for re-advertising the plot no. 159 at Sr. No. 68 vide advertisement dated 08.02.2023 (Annex.-07) may kindly be quashed qua the petitioner.
D]. In the alternatives, without prejudice to the above, by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated 27.12.2022 (Annex.04) may kindly be refunded to the petitioner."
2. An advertisement was issued for conducting e-auction for the various mining lease on 16.11.2022, whereas, the present mining lease was at serial no.166 of the advertisement.
3. The petitioner being a registered contractor, was declared a successful bidder on 23.12.2022, thereafter, the petitioner submitted the bid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.12.2022, but he could not submit rest of the amount in stipulated time of fifteen days from the bid having been declared successful.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not deposit the amount in question within fifteen days because it was a huge amount and the stipulated time of fifteen days was full of holidays.
4.1. He further submits that fifteen working days should have been given to the present petitioner to enable him for depositing the amount in question.
4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the rule does not speak of fifteen calendar days and thus, fifteen clear days ought to have been provided to the petitioner by the respondents. He submits that even if the same were not provided then also equitable consideration should have been made, looking into the fact that (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM) [2023/RJJD/016625] (3 of 5) [CW-3570/2023] the petitioner had intended to pay the amount as he already deposited the half of the amount on 27.12.2022, within the stipulated time.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in the General Clauses Act, the Sundays are excluded. 4.4. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR Online 2020 All 2645, which does not apply on the present case.
5. Mr. Sandeep Shah, Senior Advocate & Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nishant Bapna has drawn attention of this Court to the Rule 14 (10) & (11) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, which read as under:-
"14. Electronic auction and bidding process of mineral concession:-
(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 de-barred 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."
5.1. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the tender conditions of the e-auction advertisement dated 16.11.2022, (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM) [2023/RJJD/016625] (4 of 5) [CW-3570/2023] particularly, condition no.3, which is at page-29 of the petition, which is reproduced as under:-
"3- bZ&uhykehizhfe;ejkf'k dh gksxhrFkkizhfe;ejkf'k [kuuiVVkvof/k esadsoy ,d ckjtekdjkuhgksxhAmPprecksyhnkrkdksizhfe;e dh jkf'kjktLFkkuviz/kku [kfutfj;k;rfu;ekorh] 2017 ds fu;e 13 ds rgr 4 fd'rksaesatekdjkuhgksxhAizFkefd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 40 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ bZ&vkWD'kuiw.kZgksus dh frfFk ls 15 fnuesatekdjkuhgksxh] f}rh; fd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ lafonkfu"iknu ds iwoZ] r`rh; fd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ [kuuiVVk ds f}rh; o"kZ ds izkjEHkesa o vafrefd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ r`rh; o"kZ ds izkjEHkesatekdjkuhgksxhAmDrfizfe;ejkf'kdklek;kstufLFkrHkkVd] jkW;YVhbR;kfnesaughagksxkA"
5.2. Learned Senior Advocate & Additional Advocate General submits that since there is a penal clause, therefore, no equitable consideration can be made and the rule is very clear that the payment had to be made within fifteen days, which is across this case and any change or relaxation in the rule would cause unnecessary disturbance in the e-auction process.
6. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties finds that the rule is very clear that the part bid amount as stipulated was to be deposited within fifteen days of the completion of e- auction. Further, e-auction notice also has the condition of depositing 40% of the offered premium amount to the concerned authority.
7. Since it is an admitted position that such amount was not completely deposited in fifteen days, therefore, no cause of interference in made out in this petition.
8. As far as, interpretation of the rule of fifteen working days is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that once the statute is clear in its terms, whereby fifteen days have been stipulated, then (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM) [2023/RJJD/016625] (5 of 5) [CW-3570/2023] any interpretation by this Court, relaxing the statute, would not be appropriate.
9. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
65-nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)