Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arawali Resources Llp vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 May, 2024
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 560/2024.
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6866/2024.
Arawali Resources LLP through its Designated Partner Mr. Dilip
Datt Sharma S/o Late Shri Vishnu Datt Sharma, age about 54
years, having its Registered Office at Flat No. A-34, Shahid
Chandra Shekhar Aazad Affordable Awasiya Yojna, DCM Road,
Kota, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Mines and Geology, Government of
Rajasthan at Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.
3. The Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department,
Khanij Bhawan, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
4. The MSTC Limited, a Government of India Enterprise and
E-Auction Agency having its Regional Office at Room No.
114, 1st Floor, BSNL Building, Lal Kothi, Behind Nagar
Nigam, Jaipur- 302015.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Adwaita Sharma
Mr. Abhishek Choudhary
Mr. Pratap Thakur
Mr. Aniket Tater.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Asstt. to AAG.
Mr. Arvind Vyas.
Mr. Mudit Nagpal.
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-560/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
28/05/2024
1. By way of filing the present special appeal (writ), the
appellant has challenged the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by
the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 6866/2024.
2. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel submitted that the
appellant had challenged the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by
the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, who
for failure of the appellant to deposit 40% of the bid amount and
other documents as required under Rule 14(10) of the Rajasthan
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as
'Rules of 2017') forfeited the bid security of Rs. 40,00,000/-
deposited by the appellant-Company and debarred it from taking
part in any future e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years.
3. While challenging the decision of the Director, Mines and
Geology, learned Senior counsel submitted that the aforesaid
order was illegal and contrary to the facts, inasmuch as the
Department did not clarify the rates to be charged for the mineral
sold, despite the fact that a clarification was sought by the
appellant-Company. It was also argued that while cancelling
appellant's-Company bid, the Director (Mines) had debarred and
black-listed the appellant for a period of five years, which is
contrary to the provisions of Rules 14(10) and 14(11) of the Rules
of 2017.
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-560/2024]
4. Learned Senior counsel read condition No. n (5) of the
important points appended with e-auction notice dated
06.03.2024 and pointed out that as per this condition, the
maximum rate to be charge at pit mouth has been fixed as 4
times the royalty which shall include DMFT, RSMET and all taxes &
loading but as no sale can be affected on pit mouth because of the
order of the CEC and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, such condition
was illegal. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the
letter/representation which the petitioner had written to the
respondents and pointed out that the appellant had sought a
clarification as to what would be permissible rate when the mineral
(bajri) is sold from the depot which is to be established within a
distance of 2 kilometer. Learned counsel argued that in absence
of clarification in this regard, the appellant was unable to plan its
affairs as establishment of depot and transportation/ movement of
bajri to the depot from the pit mouth involves substantial cost.
5. It was contended by Mr. Bhandari that on the one hand the
letters of the appellant were mechanically responded by the
respondents and no clarification was given, due to which the
appellant could not deposit the 40% of the bid (Rs. 56, 21,
42,000/-) by 30.03.2024 as required in letter of acceptance sent
with the e-mail dated 04.04.2024 and on the other hand
immediately on passing of 10.04.2024 (the deadline given in letter
of acceptance) the impugned order was passed.
6. Learned counsel submitted that such arbitrary action of the
respondents, whereby not only appellant's right to get mining
rights have been taken away but also huge money of
Rs.40,00,000/-being bid money has been forfeited and even the
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-560/2024]
order of debarment has been passed, was challenged by way of
filing writ petition but the Writ Court has erroneously non-suited
it.
7. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel further submitted that
the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding the decision of the
Director, Mines and Geology. He argued that debarring the
Company from taking participation in future e-Auction
proceedings, amounts to black-listing and the same cannot be
done without affording any opportunity of hearing.
8. Learned Senior counsel further drew the Court's attention
towards Note No. 4 of the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 and
submitted that as a consequence of said note, the appellant's-
Company will be debarred from taking part in any future e-Auction
proceedings for a period of five years and the same clearly
amounts to black-listing.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(I) Isolators & Isolators through its Proprietor Sandhya
Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2023) 8
SCC 607; and
(ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.,
reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1.
10. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State submitted that by the impugned order
dated 15.04.2024, the appellant Company was debarred from
taking part in any further e-Auction proceedings for a period of
five years in respect of the subject mining lease area and the
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-560/2024]
same does not fall within the ambit of black-listing. He further
submitted that in relation to other mining lease areas, the
appellant-Company will be free to apply, unless an order of black-
listing in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 14(11) of the
Rules of 2017 is passed. He submitted that the State is yet to take
a decision in this respect and if deemed appropriate the
proceedings for black-listing will be taken and then, a notice as
contemplated under sub-rule (11) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017
shall be given.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. So far as the first argument of Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior
counsel that the appellant did not deposit the remaining amount
because of lack of clarification is concerned, we are of the opinion
that the requisite clarification was required to be sought by the
appellant prior to venturing into the bidding. Having taken part,
the appellant cannot challenge the conditions or stipulations made
in the e-auction notice. The appellant having participated in the
bidding process with eyes wide open was obligated to deposit the
requisite amount, according to the conditions of the tender notice
within the time period allowed in the letter of acceptance.
13. Adverting to the second submission of the appellant that the
order impugned amounts to black-listing, and even while
debarring the appellant-Company from taking part in any further
e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years, the principles of
natural justice were to be adhered to is concerned, we are of the
view that the proviso to sub-rule (10) of Rule 14 of the Rules of
2017 does not envisage any opportunity of hearing to be
accorded.
[2024:RJ-JD:24446-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-560/2024]
14. When there are two different stipulations in the same set of
Rules, one in the form of sub-rule (10) and the other in the shape
of sub-rule (11) of the Rule 14 and one specifically provides for
granting of opportunity of hearing and other does not; then it can
be safely discerned that the Rule making authority has consciously
decided to do-away with the opportunity of hearing. The Court
cannot read the opportunity of hearing which has been purposely
excluded.
15. The case of debarring the appellant's-Company from taking
part in any further e-Auction proceedings by the said order under
the scheme of the Rules of 2017, consequent to non-fulfillment of
the conditions of the letter of acceptance, automatically entails
forfeiture & debarring. Even if for the sake of argument, it is
assumed that the prior opportunity was imperative, if not
necessary, then also, since it is admitted fact that the appellant
had failed to pay first installment of 40% of the bid amount,
according to us, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant
and in the teeth of what has been encapsulated in sub-rule (10) of
Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017, no indulgence can be granted to the
appellant.
16. We find neither any error of fact nor of law to have been
committed by learned Single Judge. The appeal therefore fails.
17. Stay Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
76-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
