Maruti Khaniz Udhyog vs Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 742 Raj

(1 of 6) [CW-84/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 84/2022

1. M/s Kapil Lignite, Bhagu Jatiye Ki Gali, New Jain Mohalla Barmer, Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Mangi Lal S/o Shri Chatarbhuj Jain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of New Jain Mohalla, Bhagu Jatiya Ki Gali, Barmer (Rajasthan).

2. M/s Priyanka Coal, Bhagu Jatiye Ki Gali, New Jain Mohalla Barmer, Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Priyanka D/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of New Jain Mohalla, Bhagu Jatiya Ki Gali, Barmer (Rajasthan).

3. M/s Simaran Enterprises, Ramjan Sakhi Khan, Teersinghari, Barmer Through Its Proprietor Ammed Khan S/o Shri Ramjan Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Teersinghari, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

4. M/s Kapil Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor Gomi Devi Jain W/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of New Jain Mohalla, Bhagu Jatiya Ki Gali, Barmer (Rajasthan).

5. M/s Shree Jamwai Mata Associate, Through Proprietor Saroj Kanwar W/o Mahendra Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Pipaji Temple, Rai Colony, Barmer (Rajasthan).

6. M/s Sai Kripa Transport Company, Backside LIC Sindhari Choraha, Shastri Nagar, Barmer Through Its Proprietor Durga Prasad S/o Shri Paras Mal, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Shashtri Nagar, Barmer (Rajasthan).

7. M/s Kalpna Enterprises, Near Tan Singh Thekedar, Gandhi Barmer, Through Its Proprietor Madan Singh S/o Shri Rugh Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Jalela Kotda, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Managing Director, The Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd., 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Group General Manager/principal (Lignite), Sbu And Pc, The Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd. Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -

                                              (2 of 6)                   [CW-84/2022]


         302005.

3. The Senior Manager (Mktg.), The Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd. Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.

4. The Selling Agent Of The Principal, Room No. 114, First Floor, B.S.N.L. Building, Lal Kothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015.

5. The Assistant Manager, MSTC Ltd., 21 Kamalanjali Apartment, 2nd Floor, Opposite Tube Company, Old Padra Road, Akotta, Vadodara (Gujarat).

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 87/2022 Maruti Khaniz Udhyog, Near Harsani Fana, Village-Jalipa, District-Barmer. Through Its Proprietor Shri Sanjeev Dhariwal S/o Shri Babu Lal Dhariwal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Hamirpura, Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Registered Office At C-89- 90, Janpath, Lal Kothi Scheme.

2. Mstc Ltd. (Government Of India Enterprise), Room No. 114, First Floor, BSNL Building, Lal Kothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Branch Jaipur.

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 103/2022 M/s. Pawan Kumar Singh Bhati, N.H. 68 Jaisalmer Road, Near Indian Oil Pump, Barmer Through Its Proprietor Shri Pawan Kumar Singh S/o Shri Madho Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 408, Ward No. 18, Gandhi Nagar, Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Ltd., Through Its Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At C-89- 90, Janpath, Lal Kothi Scheme.

(3 of 6) [CW-84/2022]

2. Mstc Ltd. (Government Of India Enterprise), Room No. 114, First Floor, Bsnl Building, Lal Kothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Branch, Jaipur.

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P. Choudhary, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Balia Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari all through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha Mr. Prateek Kumar Rohiwal Mr. Abhishek Mehta all through V.C.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/01/2022

1. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr.

Abhishek Mehta and Mr. Suniel Purohit, at the outset submits that

the issues involved in these writ petitions and the arguments

sought to be canvassed before this Court have already been

extensively dealt with by the Coordinate Bench at Jaipur and after

hearing the matters on three consecutive dates, vide detailed

order dated 12.01.2022, a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.91/2022 : Abhimanyu Sharda & Ors. Vs. The

State of Raj. & Ors. has been dismissed.

2. Learned Advocate General further submits that these writ

petitions be also dismissed in light of the order dated 12.01.2022,

passed in the case of Abhimanyu Sharda (supra).

3. In the judgment rendered in the case of Abhimanyu (supra)

it has been concluded thus:-

(4 of 6) [CW-84/2022]

"31. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the allegation of the petitioners that action of the respondents in incorporating such enormous conditions in the tender document/E-auction notice is only to just favour few persons and the same is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution of India, is without any basis as neither any tangible documentary evidence has been placed on record in support thereof nor any person by name has been impleaded as party in either of the writ petition, against whom malafide could be alleged to favour any person or to give undue benefit which is not permissible under the law; secondly the another allegation of the petitioners about the impugned decision of the respondents being arbitrary in nature and without application of mind, is also not sustainable as it is reflected from the reply that only after having an overall scrutiny of the availability of the lignite in the concerned mines and taking into consideration the provision of Regulation 107 of Regulations of 2017, such decision was rightly taken by the respondents in incorporating such conditions; thirdly from the perusal of the material placed by the respondents on record, I am of the considered view that certainly the action of the respondents in imposing the conditions, impugned herein, has a nexus with the objects sought to be achieved; fourthly in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, in my view the action of the respondents in incorporating the conditions, impugned herein, does not appear to be either arbitrary in nature or a case of discrimination which could call upon this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; lastly in view of the judgment passed by the

(5 of 6) [CW-84/2022]

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uflex Ltd (supra) where the interference of the Court in tenders has been held to be very restrictive, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned policy decision of the respondents."

4. M/s P.P. Choudhary, learned Sr. Advocate; Vikas Balia and

Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submit that a host of important facts were not brought

to the notice of the Court and various substantial arguments were

not advanced before the Bench at Jaipur and thus these cases be

heard independently or the matter be referred to a Larger Bench.

5. Following points were highlighted by learned counsel:-

(i) respondent R.S.M.L. has arbitrarily fixed the requirement lifting

1.25 Lakh MT in the last three financial years i.e. year 2018-19,

2019-20 and 2020-21, while completely excluding the quantity

lifted by the petitioners for the period between 01.04.2021 and

31.12.2021. According to them such criterion has been prescribed

only with a view to exclude most of the registered buyers like the

petitioners;

(ii) that the facts of the case have not been gone into in their true

perspective by the Coordinate Bench at Jaipur;

(iii) that the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench is not in

conformity with law;

(iv) that the respondent - Corporation which is an instrumentality

of the State is supposed to encourage the competition so as to get

best price, whereas they have reduced the competition and

restricted many traders by way of imposing arbitrary conditions;

(v) that the condition of requisite annual turnover introduced this

year for the first time has no nexus with the object to be

achieved;

(6 of 6) [CW-84/2022]

6. While noticing the aforesaid submissions and arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court, is not

inclined to venture into exercise of dialating upon them, as it

would be against judicial propriety.

7. Concededly, these writ petitions were listed on 04.01.2022;

05.01.2022; 11.01.2022 and on all occasions these matters were

adjourned having regard to the fact that the hearing had

commenced at Jaipur and the matters were being heard by the

Bench at Jaipur.

8. If the petitioner so wished, they could have very well put

forth their submissions before the Jaipur Bench, as they were well

aware that the final view would be taken at Jaipur, as this Court

had deferred the hearing.

9. Be that as it may.

10. With a view to maintain the judicial discipline, this Court

neither proposes to dwelve into the arguments and take a

different view than what has been taken by the Coordinate Bench

at Jaipur, nor is it inclined to hear the matters on merit or refer

the matter a Larger Bench.

11. Hence, following the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench in

Abhimanyu Sharda (supra) these writ petitions are dismissed.

12. Stay petitions also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 97-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)