Rajasthan High Court
Ambuja Cements Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 683/2021
Acc Limited
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
And
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 687/2021
Acc Limited
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
And
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 693/2021
Ambuja Cements Ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. through VC]
Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh]
Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh] in SAW
Nos.683/2021 & 687/2021
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Anupam Bhargava in SAW
No.693/2021
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Sighvi, Sr. Adv.
through VC
Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma &
Mr. Madhu Sudan Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv.
through VC assisted by Ms. Alankrita
(2 of 5) [SAW-683/2021]
Sharma in SAW No.693/2021
Mr. Anirudha Bhatia through VC
Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat on
behalf of Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
16/08/2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Since the issue involved in the matters is identical, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these matters have
been taken up together.
3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel in SAW Nos.683/2021
& 687/2021 and Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior counsel in
SAW No.693/2021 both appearing for the appellants submitted
that present appeals have been filed seeking to challenge
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.08.2021
passed in SBCWP No.8191/2021 and associated cases.
4. The appellants herein have sought for leave to appeal on the
ground that they are necessary and essential parties to the
proceedings and have not been impleaded in the writ proceedings.
In support of the leave to appeal, various contentions have been
raised and in particular to the extent that the appellants had been
found to be "eligible bidders" pursuant to tender floated by the
Minerals Scrap Trading Corporation (MSTC) on behalf of the State
of Rajasthan vide NIT dated 04.06.2021 for auction of four blocks
of limestone mines. Admittedly, the said action had taken place
under the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 and tenders have
accordingly been issued.
(3 of 5) [SAW-683/2021]
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the tenders
contain various terms including a requirement to deposit "Bid
Security Deposit", which it appears, was amended/enhanced by
way of an e-mail sent by the MSTC dated 24.06.2021.
6. It is asserted on behalf of the private-respondents (Writ
Petitioners) that they have complied with the tender terms but
denied receipt of the e-mail stipulating enhancing the "Bid
Security Deposit" (though seriously opposed by counsel for the
respondent). In any event, it is submitted on behalf of the
appellants that the private-respondent (Writ Petitioners) who were
otherwise found to be "ineligible", challenged the same before the
learned Single Judge and in the said proceedings, the "eligible
bidders", namely the present appellants had not been made
parties, hence the present application seeking leave to appeal.
7. It is submitted that interest of the present appellants, who
are eligible bidders were required to be made party in the writ
petitions. In support of this submission they relied on a judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 4305 and in
para 18 specifically relied upon on the issue as to whether eligible
bidders were entitled to be impleaded in the petition filed before
the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion
that various adverse situations may arise, if such eligible bidders
are not made party to the proceedings and accordingly concluded
that it would be more appropriate for the constitutional Courts to
insist on all eligible bidders being made parties to the proceedings
filed by an unsuccessful or ineligible bidder.
8. Learned counsel for the private-respondent placed reliance
on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to counter the
(4 of 5) [SAW-683/2021]
aforesaid submission i.e. in the Case of S.P. Gupta Vs.
President Of India And Ors. reported in 1981 Supp.(1) SCC
87 and in particular para Nos.14, 16 & 17 thereof in order to
advance the contentions that the present appellants cannot be
termed to be "aggrieved party" for the purpose of filing of present
appeals, although in the said judgment exceptions have been
carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para Nos.16 & 17
thereof.
9. At this juncture, this Court is of the considered view that
leave to appeal ought to be granted so the applications seeking
leave to appeal are allowed.
10. The appeals are admitted. The appellants are directed to
implead MSTC (Agent of the State of Rajasthan) as a respondent
in the present appeals. Notice to MSTC shall be served 'Dasti'
apart from usual mode and through e-mail positively by tomorrow.
11. Issue notice to respondents. Private respondents are
represented by respective counsels. Advance copy of the memo of
appeal has already been served. Reply affidavit, if any, be filed by
23.08.2021 after serving copy to counsel for the appellant.
12. It is stated by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel that
today is fixed as the date for opening of the financial bid and
determining the floor price.
13. We are of the considered view that order of injunction need
to be issued to the State Government in order to injunct them
from determining the floor price and opening the financial bid.
Ordered accordingly.
14. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by 26.08.2021.
(5 of 5) [SAW-683/2021]
15. List on 27.08.2021 as a first case and endeavor shall be
made to dispose of the matter on that day.
16. In the meanwhile, defects if any, be removed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/Rajat-7, 8 & 9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
