Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kapil Lignite vs Raj. State Mines And Mine. Ltd., And Ors on 14 March, 2022
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1579/2013
Kapil Lignite (Proprietor) Mangilal Jain S/o Sh Chatarbhujji Jain,
aged about 56 years, R/o.New Jain Mohalla Bhagu Jatiya Ki Gali,
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd., through its
Managing Director, 4 Meera Marg, Udapur - 313004.
2. The Group General Manager (Lignite) SBU & PC, The
Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd., Khanij Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Senior Manager (Mktg.), The Rajasthan State Mines and
Mineral Ltd., Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Junior Manager, MSTC Ltd., 21, Kamalanjali Apartment, 2 nd
Floor, Opposite Tube Company, Old Padra Rod, Akotta, Vadodara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 14/03/2022 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"It is therefore, very humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :-
(i) allow the above writ petition of the petitioner;
(ii) Quash and Set aside the impugned e-auction letter dated 11.2.2013 (Ann.8);
(iii) Direct the respondents to allow the small bidders like petitioner to participate in the e-auction process for sale of Lignite as was earlier allowed by the respondents;(Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:42:12 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-1579/2013]
(iv) Hold that the condition of changing two categories of buyer into single category to 'Actual consumers only' by the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.
(v) Direct the respondents to proceed with the e-
auction of sale of Lignite as per the terms and condition which were prevailing prior to the issuance of impugned e-tender letter dt.11.2.2013 by fixing the two categories of buyers i.e. Small buyers/Consumers and Large Bulk buyer.
(vi) grant such relief/reliefs which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and
(vii) award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a regular purchaser of the Lignite from the respondents. Since the petitioner was a regular purchaser, he participated in the bid proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department in the year 2013. However, the category of the persons like the petitioner who are 'small buyers' were excluded from the category of eligible bidders and, therefore, the petitioner could not participate in the e-auction proceedings in the year 2013. In the circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
This Court on 19/02/2013, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, while issuing the notices passed the following orders :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the impugned e-tender notice Annex. 8 dated 11.02.2013, the proposed auction of lignite is going to be held by the respondent- Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Ltd. today itself, and though the petitioner was/is a regular purchaser in the category of 'small buyers' as defined in Special Terms and conditions of "e-Auction Scheme of sale of RUN-of Mine (ROM Lignite)", and he has been so buying small bulks up to 5000 MT of lignite in the past three years, however, in the present auction under Annex. 8 dated 11.02.2013, the category of 'small buyers' has been excluded from the category of eligible bidders, as far as "Giral Mines, Barmer" and "Soneri Mine, Barmer" are concerned, (Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:42:12 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-1579/2013] and only the "Actual Consumers" have been treated as eligible auction bidders, and which exclusion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasbihari Panda etc. Vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1969 SC 1081.
The matter requires consideration. Let notices be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks.
"Dasti". Direct service permitted.
It shall be the responsibility of learned counsel for that petitioner to serve the respondent before the next date, failing which the interim protection granted by this court shall be liable to be vacated.
Counsel to file proof of service on the respondents, and not merely proof of despatch of notice, before the next date positively. In the alternative, affidavit of the counsel/party of compliance to the extent made, be filed.
In the meanwhile, if the petitioner applies and gives his Bid for 5000 MT of lignite in the category of "Small Buyers" or "Small Actual Consumers" as the case may be, the petitioner's Bid will not be rejected without the leave of this Court and shall be considered by the respondent- R.S.M.M. Ltd., subject to the final decision of this writ petition.
List the case on 05.03.2013".
In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner participated in the bid proceedings for his desire to purchase 5000 MT of Lignite. However, he was allowed to lift only approximately 920 MT of the material (Lignite) which was for a consideration of the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner.
Now, the limited prayer of the petitioner is that out of 5000 MT for which the petitioner originally made a bid, he may be permitted to lift the Lignite at the highest rate of bid in the auction proceedings received by the respondents uptil 31/12/2021 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 13/12/2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the order dated 13/12/2021 uptil 31/12/2021, the highest bid for the Lignite received is Rs. 2,440/- per MT but the respondents are (Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:42:12 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-1579/2013] not in a position to deliver the Lignite till 31/05/2022 because the commitments to supply the same are booked and, therefore, they are not in a position to supply the Lignite to the petitioner prior to 31/05/2022.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition on merits and only prays for a direction that the petitioner may be permitted to lift the Lignite at the cost of highest bid amount after 31/05/2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent assures this Court that in the event of availability of the Lignite with them after 31/05/2022, the balance of the material i.e. Lignite will be handed over to the petitioner within the shortage possible time preferably within a period of three to four months from today.
It is made clear that the amount of Rs.2,440/- stated by the respondents is not inclusive of tax and, therefore, whatever applicable tax on the date of delivery will have to be paid by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to hand over the balance of the material i.e. Lignite within the shortage possible time preferably within a period of three to four months from today @ Rs.2,440/- plus applicable taxes.
The stay application and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 149-SanjayS/-
(Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 08:42:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)