Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Unknown vs Mr. S.S.Solanki on 22 April, 2015
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
J U D G M E N T
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1217/2013
Suraj Prakash Kachhwah
v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Judgment :: 22nd April, 2015
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. S.S.Solanki, for the appellant.
Mr. Rameshwar Dave]
Ms. Suman Porwal ] for the respondents.
.....
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.)
The tender submitted by the appellant petitioner in pursuance to the notification dated 16.5.2012 to have a mining lease for minor mineral 'sand stone' was not accepted despite he being the highest bidder. On asking, the reason disclosed for not accepting the appellant petitioner's bid was that he failed to state on oath about the fact that in last five years he was not held guilty for illegal mining. It was also informed to him that the tender given by Shri Pep Singh (respondent No.5), the second highest bidder, was accepted.
-2-
Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent mining department the appellant petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 8.11.2013. The appellant petitioner before learned Single Bench urged that - (1) the rejection of tender is bad as the petitioner stated on oath that no case against him at the instance of the department of mining was pending. This statement indicates that the petitioner was not subjected to any case for illegal mining, and (2) the affidavit given by the respondent No.5 is no affidavit in eye of law as the contents of that are not verified by him, as such his candidature should have also been rejected by the department of mining.
Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ while holding that as per Rule 35 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 the petitioner was required to supply the information demanded by way of filing an affidavit, but he failed to do so. Learned Single Bench held that the statement made by the petitioner that 'no case against me lodges by the mining department is pending' do not satisfy the requirement in the terms that 'he or any of his family member has not been held guilty in last five years for illegal mining'.
In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No.5 Shri Pep Singh too submitted an affidavit that was laconic, therefore, mining lease could have not been granted to him. According to learned counsel the statement of facts made by -3- the respondent No.5 in the form of affidavit is lacking verification of the facts, hence the affidavit is no affidavit in eye of law.
The affidavit in question is available on record as a part of document Anx.5. From perusal of that it reveals that certain statements of facts are made by Shri Pep Singh but those have not been verified. It is well settled that an affidavit is a written statement of fact voluntarily made by a deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorised to do so by law. A constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K.Nambiar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1970 SC 652, held that verification is required to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence and lack of proper verification makes the affidavit inadmissible in evidence.
In view of it, the affidavit submitted by Shri Pep Singh is no affidavit in eye of law as the statements of fact contained therein have not been verified. The respondent mining department as such should have not taken into consideration the statement made by the respondent No.5 through a laconic affidavit. Having considered the same we are of the view that acceptance of bid tendered by the respondent No.5 should not have been accepted.
Accordingly, this appeal deserves acceptance to the extent that relates to challenge to the grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No.5. The same, therefore, is allowed. The mining lease granted to -4- respondent No.5 Shri Pep Singh in pursuance to the process of allotment initiated under notification dated 16.5.2012 is declared illegal, hence is set aside. The respondent mining department shall reinitiate the entire process of granting mining lease for the mining area in question.
No order to costs.
(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Mathuria.KK/PS