Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dungar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/016625] (1 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3570/2023
Dungar Ram S/o Shri Dhala Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Sutharo Ka Bass, Rajpuriya, Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Through Authorized Person Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Gopa Ram
Solanki, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 56, Balaji Nagar, Salawas
Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
Government, Mines Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Addl. Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department,
Udaipur Zone, Opposite Roadways Workshop, Sector 13,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv. & AAG
assisted by Mr. Nishant Bapna
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/05/2023
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the
following prayers:-
"A]. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order
dated 18.01.2023 (Annex.06) may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
B]. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be direct to allow the petitioner to
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016625] (2 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
deposit the rest of amount which he has made an efforts to
deposit the amount on 10.01.2023 through e-challan.
C]. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the e-
auction for re-advertising the plot no. 159 at Sr. No. 68
vide advertisement dated 08.02.2023 (Annex.-07) may
kindly be quashed qua the petitioner.
D]. In the alternatives, without prejudice to the above,
by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the amount of
Rs. 10 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated
27.12.2022 (Annex.04) may kindly be refunded to the
petitioner."
2. An advertisement was issued for conducting e-auction for the
various mining lease on 16.11.2022, whereas, the present mining
lease was at serial no.166 of the advertisement.
3. The petitioner being a registered contractor, was declared a
successful bidder on 23.12.2022, thereafter, the petitioner
submitted the bid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.12.2022, but
he could not submit rest of the amount in stipulated time of fifteen
days from the bid having been declared successful.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
could not deposit the amount in question within fifteen days
because it was a huge amount and the stipulated time of fifteen
days was full of holidays.
4.1. He further submits that fifteen working days should have
been given to the present petitioner to enable him for depositing
the amount in question.
4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the rule does not speak of
fifteen calendar days and thus, fifteen clear days ought to have
been provided to the petitioner by the respondents. He submits
that even if the same were not provided then also equitable
consideration should have been made, looking into the fact that
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016625] (3 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
the petitioner had intended to pay the amount as he already
deposited the half of the amount on 27.12.2022, within the
stipulated time.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
in the General Clauses Act, the Sundays are excluded.
4.4. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Enterprises Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR Online 2020 All 2645,
which does not apply on the present case.
5. Mr. Sandeep Shah, Senior Advocate & Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Nishant Bapna has drawn attention of this
Court to the Rule 14 (10) & (11) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2017, which read as under:-
"14. Electronic auction and bidding process of
mineral concession:-
(10) After declaration of successful bidder, the successful
bidder shall deposit the first installment being twenty five
percent of the minimum guaranteed premium within fifteen
days of completion of auction process and the Mining
Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned shall send
proposal to the competent authority.
(11) If successful bidder fails to deposit the first installment
mentioned in sub-rule (10), bid security deposited shall be
forfeited and shall be de-barred for five years in
participating in further e-auction. In such case, a counter
offer shall be given to the second highest bidder (H2), third
highest bidder(H3) etc. in serial order to match the highest
bid submitted by the successful bidder. In this process, no
negotiation shall be done."
5.1. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the tender
conditions of the e-auction advertisement dated 16.11.2022,
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016625] (4 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
particularly, condition no.3, which is at page-29 of the petition,
which is reproduced as under:-
"3- bZ&uhykehizhfe;ejkf'k dh gksxhrFkkizhfe;ejkf'k [kuuiVVkvof/k
esadsoy ,d ckjtekdjkuhgksxhAmPprecksyhnkrkdksizhfe;e dh
jkf'kjktLFkkuviz/kku [kfutfj;k;rfu;ekorh] 2017 ds fu;e 13 ds rgr 4
fd'rksaesatekdjkuhgksxhAizFkefd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 40 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½
bZ&vkWD'kuiw.kZgksus dh frfFk ls 15 fnuesatekdjkuhgksxh] f}rh; fd'r ¼cksyh
jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ lafonkfu"iknu ds iwoZ] r`rh; fd'r ¼cksyh
jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ [kuuiVVk ds f}rh; o"kZ ds izkjEHkesa o
vafrefd'r ¼cksyh jkf'k dh 20 izfr'krjkf'k ds cjkcj½ r`rh; o"kZ ds
izkjEHkesatekdjkuhgksxhAmDrfizfe;ejkf'kdklek;kstufLFkrHkkVd]
jkW;YVhbR;kfnesaughagksxkA"
5.2. Learned Senior Advocate & Additional Advocate General
submits that since there is a penal clause, therefore, no equitable
consideration can be made and the rule is very clear that the
payment had to be made within fifteen days, which is across this
case and any change or relaxation in the rule would cause
unnecessary disturbance in the e-auction process.
6. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties finds
that the rule is very clear that the part bid amount as stipulated
was to be deposited within fifteen days of the completion of e-
auction. Further, e-auction notice also has the condition of
depositing 40% of the offered premium amount to the concerned
authority.
7. Since it is an admitted position that such amount was not
completely deposited in fifteen days, therefore, no cause of
interference in made out in this petition.
8. As far as, interpretation of the rule of fifteen working days is
concerned, this Court is of the opinion that once the statute is
clear in its terms, whereby fifteen days have been stipulated, then
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:06:05 PM)
[2023/RJJD/016625] (5 of 5) [CW-3570/2023]
any interpretation by this Court, relaxing the statute, would not be
appropriate.
9. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is
dismissed.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
65-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
