Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish Grover vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 March, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 26413 of 2018
Reserved on : 27.2.2024
Date of Decision: 06.3.2024
Munish Grover ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
letter, issued by respondent No. 2 dated 27.5.2017 (Annexure P-3), and, the
letter dated 27.5.2017 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No. 4.
Furthermore, the petitioner prays that a mandamus be made, upon the
respondent concerned, to grant to the petitioner the benefit of the orders
dated 7.5.2018 and dated 10.5.2018, as became rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in SLP No. 1798 of 2018, and, to which respectively Annexure
P-7 and Annexure P-8 became assigned.
2. Annexure P-4 carries a communication from the Director
Mining, Industry and Commerce Department, Punjab, whereby a reference
is made to the meeting of the Cabinet, Government of Punjab, as, held on
19.4.2017, wherebys a decision was taken for holding the auction of
quarries, through progressive bidding procedure instead of the prior thereto
auctions rather adopting the reverse bidding procedure, thus for allotments
of sites being made to the mineral concessionaire(s) concerned.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
3. The petitioner became aggrieved from Annexure P-4, and,
thereby through Annexure P-5 addressed to (i) the District Mining, Officer
Director Industry and Commerce Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and, to (ii)
the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer, District Industries Centre,
Jalandhar, he asked that his case be re-considered.
4. It appears that through Annexure P-5, the present petitioner did
lay a challenge to Annexure P-4. The challenge made by the present
petitioner to Annexure P-4, was also raised by the aggrieved therefrom
through theirs instituting CWP-12664-2017, and, other connected therewith
writ petitions. In the petitions (supra), a challenge was made to the
constitutional vires of the decision of the cabinet, which finds reference in
Annexure P-4, whereby a change was made to the hitherto procedure
relating to auction of mining sites, inasmuch as, the reverse bidding
procedure becoming altered to progressive bidding procedure.
5. However, through a decision made on the said connected writ
petitions, on 12.1.2018, this Court after making expostulations, in paragraph
41 thereof, para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus concluded that
the policy decision, (Annexure P-4) rather is uninterferable in the exercise of
writ jurisdiction, and, ultimately declared the policy decision, to be not ultra
vires the constitution. Resultantly, this Court dismissed the challenge, as
became laid in the writ petitions (supra).
"41. It is also settled that writ Courts rarely interfere with
policy decisions unless a policy suffers from want of authority
or is patently arbitrary, capricious and not informed by
reason. The onus is upon the petitioners to satisfy the
conditions referred to and unless they are able to discharge
this burden, the writ Court will not exercise its powers to set-
aside a policy decision. The petitioners herein have miserably
failed in this regard. Moreover, the Courts are not equipped to
examine the merits and de-merits of different economic
policies (procedure of auction is in the realm economic policy)
and therefore, interference in such a decision can be extremely
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
risky."
6. The aggrieved therefrom made a challenge thereto, before the
Hon'ble Apex Court, but as unfolded by Annexure P-7, the Hon'ble Apex
Court made thereons, the hereinafter extracted speakings, and, subsequently
ordered for the listing of the apposite SLP on 10.5.2018.
"It is stated by Mr. P. Chidambaram, the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of State of Punjab that the offer is
made to the petitioners to resolve the entire controversy. This
offer was also made before the High Court and forms part of
the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is mentioned in
para 6 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
The offer is to the following effect:
"The petitioners will surrender their respective contracts
after receiving in advance the profit for the balance term of
their respective contract as per the agreement. This could
be worked out by multiplying the quantity of balance
extractable minor mineral by the bid price and subtracting
the expenses from it."
It is stated by learned senior counsel of the State of Punjab
that this is a firm offer and will be put down on affidavit. The
affidavit will be filed on or before 9.5.2018. The petitioners
may proceed to take instructions on the basis of this firm offer
without waiting for the affidavit.
List the matter on 10.5.2018."
7. It is clear from the above extracted order, as made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, that an offer was permitted to be made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, by the respondents concerned, to the mineral concessionaire
concerned, to the effect that the mineral concessionaires will surrender their
prospective contracts, but after receiving in advance the profit for the
balance term of their respective contracts as per the agreement. The said
could be worked out by multiplying the quantity of balance extractable
minor mineral by the bid price and subtracting the expenses from it.
8. Subsequently, on 10.5.2018, as revealed by Annexure P-8, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, on a statement made by the learned counsel for the
State of Punjab, that within a week from the said date i.e. on or before
18.5.2018, the necessary calculations and assesments would be made with
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
regard to each of the petitioner, and, the quantum that is required to be paid,
thus being paid, within a week thereafter i.e. on or before 25.5.2018 by the
State of Punjab to the respective mineral concessionaires concerned, through
necessary cheques. However, the petitioners in the apposite SLP were
directed to stop mining activities with effect from 10.5.2018, and, were also
directed to take away their machinery on or before 18.5.2018. It was further
ordered, that if any amount was required to be refunded to the petitioners,
thereupon, the State of Punjab was directed to look into the said fact, and,
any delay in calculating the refundable amount was also directed to not
come in the way of implementation of the orders (supra).
9. Apparently, the present petitioner did not then access the
Hon'ble Apex Court. However, he subsequently accessed the Hon'ble Apex
Court through raising SLP (Civil) Dairy No. 28726 of 2018, yet on the said
SLP, the hereinafter order was passed.
"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) seeks leave to withdraw
the petitions. He says that he would like to approach the High
Court.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn".
10. Therefore, thereby the directions alike to the one, as became
passed in Annexure P-7, and, in Annexure P-8 rather did not become so
passed in favour of the present petitioner, thus thereby the present petitioner
cannot claim parity with the petitioners, in respect of whom the orders,
enclosed in Annexures P-7, and, P-8, thus became passed.
11. Be that as it may, yet the present petitioner claims parity with
the petitioners, in respect of whom Annexure P-7, and, Annexure P-8
became passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, for the reasons to be
assigned hereinafter, the present petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with
the petitioners in the SLP (supra).
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
12. The reason for drawing the above conclusion stems, from the
factum, that the said asserted parity could become well leveraged by the
present petitioner, only when the offer made to the petitioner, that he
surrenders his respective contract, after receiving in advance the profit for
the balance term of their respective contracts as per the agreement, but
obviously became accepted by the present petitioner. However, the said
offer remained unaccepted by the petitioner despite its being made to the
present petitioner, thereby the benefit of the verdict (supra), thus was not
accordable to the present petitioner. The factum of the respondent
concerned, in terms of the extractions (supra), making an offer to the present
petitioner, is unfolded in the relevant paragraph of the reply on affidavit,
furnished to the instant petition, para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
"That in view of the submissions made in the foregoing paras,
it is stated that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to
either surrender the mining contract or to transfer his contract
as per progressive bidding policy. The contract of the
petitioner was cancelled as he had not applied for either.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to grant the benefit as
per the order dated 7.5.2018 and 10.5.2018 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India is not tenable and the present petition
deserved to be dismissed, in the interest of justice."
13. It is also apparent on a reading of the above para, that despite
the said offer becoming made to the present petitioner to either surrender the
mining contract or to transfer his contract as per progressive bidding policy,
yet the said offer remaining unresponded. Furthermore, it is stated in the
reply, on affidavit, furnished to the instant petition, that the petitioner was
informed vide letter dated 29.1.2018, that the Government has determined
the rate of progressive bid @ Rs. 473/- per tone, and, if he is so agrees, he
was asked to furnish his consent by 29.1.2018, so that further action in the
matter is taken. Nonetheless, it is stated in the reply, on affidavit, that
neither the petitioner surrendered the contract, nor he asked for transferring
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
the contract, as per the progressive bidding policy, and, as such the General
Manager-cum-Mining Officer, District Industries Centre, Jalandhar,
cancelled the mining contract of the petitioner vide letter No. 394 dated
18.5.2018.
14. It is further candidly stated in the reply on affidavit, that the
said fact has been suppressed in the instant writ petition. In consequence, it
is stated in reply, on affidavit, that the present petitioner rather on account of
his suppressing the above fact, thus is to be declined the writ relief. There is
no material on record suggestive, that the respondent did not, in terms of the
speakings made in the orders drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Annexure
P-7, and, Annexure P-8, thus make the relevant offer to the present
petitioner. Therefore, it has to be concluded, that the relevant offer, as made
to the present petitioner, also became declined. Resultantly, when only with
the petitioner favourably responding to the said offer, inasmuch as, his either
opting for the mutation of the mining contract from the hitherto reverse
bidding to progressive bidding, or his opting for surrendering of contract on
reverse bidding, rather whereafters the speakings (supra), made in
Annexures P-7 and P-8 were to favourably ensue to the present petitioner. In
other words, if only the petitioner had favourably responded to the letter
(supra) drawn in terms of the speakings (supra) made in Annexure P-4, that
thereby the petitioner could, if he had not taken to accept the mutation of the
mining contract from reverse bidding to progressive bidding, but had opted
or had accepted the offer of the respondent concerned, thus to make the
determinations of monetary recompenses qua him, rather in terms of the
speakings (supra), made in the Annexures P-7 and P-8. Contrarily, the lack
of response to the relevant offers made by the respondent to the petitioner,
thereby estops the petitioner to claim parity with the petitioners in respect of
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -7- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
whom Annexures P-7 and P-8 became passed.
15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court, that the petitioner had accessed the Hon'ble Apex
Cout, and, the Hon'ble Apex Court had permitted him to withdraw the SLP
concerned, but with liberty to approach this Court. However, since in the
order (supra), as became drawn on the apposite SLP, as became preferred by
the petitioner, rather no relief became granted to the present petitioner in
tandem with the relief, as became granted to the petitioners in Annexures P-
7 and P-8, thereby the present petitioner cannot claim parity with the
petitioners in respect of whom, the orders, as embodied in Annexures P-7
and P-8, thus became passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. Since the sine qua non for the petitioner claiming parity was but
embedded in the trite factum of his favourably responding to the relevant
offers, as became made by the respondent to him, whereas, his remaining
unresponsive thereto, rather his concealing the factum of his receiving the
said offers, and, yet his not making response thereto, besides his also
concealing the factum, that for failure of his making any response to the
relevant offers, as became made to him by the respondent concerned, thus
had led to the cancellation of his contract. Resultantly, the above
suppression debars the present petitioner from his claiming, that the
equitable writ jurisdiction be favourably exercised in his favour.
17. Even otherwise, after rescission of the contract taking place,
factum whereof has been suppressed in the petition by the petitioner, thus
wherefroms the equitable writ jurisdiction vested in this Court but has been
fouled. Resultantly, when the contract after its rescission but becomes
terminated, therebys when only before termination of the mining contract,
the speakings (supra), as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Annexures P-7
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
CWP No. 26413 of 2018 -8- 2024:PHHC:032717-DB
and P-8, remained enlivened, and, not thereafter. Consequently, therebys
also the petitioner cannot claim parity with the petitioners, in respect of
whom the orders, enclosed in Annexures P-7, and, P-8, thus became passed.
Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is
constrained to dismiss it.
Final order
18. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same
is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned orders are maintained, and,
affirmed.
19. The pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
March 06, 2024
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032717-DB
8 of 8
