Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2512/2021 on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2512 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Jasvinder Singh. ..........Petitioner
(By Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. ......Respondents
(By Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand and Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for
respondent no. 5)
ORDER
According to the petitioner, in the year
2018, bids were invited for removal of River Bed
Material ('R.B.M.' for short) from Ravasan River in
Village Rasoolpur Meethiberi, District Haridwar under
the Uttarakhand River Training Policy-2016;
respondent no.5 was found to be the highest bidder
and was granted contract for removal of river bed
material for ` 1,44,01,000/-. As per the conditions of
the contract, the river bed material was to be
removed upto 30.06.2018. Since respondent no. 5
could not remove the entire quantity of river bed
material within stipulated time, therefore, he filed
WPMS No. 1874 of 2018, seeking extension of time
for removing the R.B.M. The said writ petition was
dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 10.07.2018, by holding that since
respondent no. 5 himself is to be blamed for not
removing the required quantity of R.B.M., therefore,
extension of time cannot be granted to him. The
order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was
challenged by respondent no. 5 and Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 06.09.2018 extended the
time by 7 days. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 filed
WPMS No. 206 of 2021, again seeking permission to
remove the remaining quantity of R.B.M. from the
mining lot allotted to him vide order dated
13.06.2018. The said writ petition too was dismissed
by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.01.2021.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
14.10.2021 passed by Secretary, Industrial
Development, whereby respondent no. 5 has been
granted extension of time for removing the remaining
quantity of river bed material from Ravasan River in
Village Rasoolpur Meethiberi, District Haridwar.
Petitioner has also challenged consequential order
dated 28.10.2021 passed by Additional Director,
Mining.
3. It is the contention on behalf of petitioner
that contract for removal of R.B.M. was granted to
respondent no. 5 in the year 2018 under the
Uttarakhand River Training Policy-2016, in which
there is no provision for extension of time. It is
further contended that, under the River Training
Policy, R.B.M. has to be removed on or before 30th
June and the policy does not contemplate extension of
time beyond 30th June. It is further the contention on
behalf of the petitioner that, after dismissal of two
writ petitions filed by respondent no. 5 on merit, his
rights were crystalized, therefore, State Government
could not have granted any concession in favour of
respondent no. 5 contrary to judgment of this Hon'ble
Court. It is further contended that State Government
cannot distribute largesse to individuals as per whims
& fancies of powers that be, and right to remove
R.B.M. can be granted only through public auction, in
which all interested persons will have opportunity to
participate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the manner, in which respondent no. 5
was permitted to remove R.B.M. without inviting bids,
is not only arbitrary, but has also resulted in huge
loss to public exchequer.
5. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 5 submits that
petitioner has a remedy under Rule 14 of Uttarakhand
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation
and Storage) Rules, 2021. However, Rule 14
provides that Appeal shall lie to the Divisional
Commissioner; in the present case, order impugned is
passed by State Government, therefore, remedy of
Appeal provided under Rule 14 would be illusory.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5
further submits that his client has removed more than
85% of available R.B.M. in terms of the order, which
is impugned in the writ petition, therefore, the writ
petition has become infructuous. The said submission
is bereft of merit. Merely because major part of work
has been completed by respondent no. 5 would not be
sufficient ground for dismissal of the writ petition in
which action of the State Government is challenged.
7. He further submits that, pursuant to
impugned order, respondent no. 5 has deposited a
sum of `50,00,000/- with the Competent Authority, in
addition to the sum of ` 61,68,500/- deposited earlier.
Thus, according to him, there is no loss to public
exchequer. It is common knowledge that competition
in matters regarding disposal of natural resources
results in more revenue to the public exchequer. If
bids were invited before granting permission for
removing the R.B.M., then public exchequer would
have been benefitted due to more revenue.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts & reasons,
this Court is prima facie satisfied that the manner, in
which State has permitted respondent no. 5 to
remove R.B.M. from Ravasan River in Village
Rasoolpur Meethiberi, District Haridwar, is arbitrary &
illegal.
9. As prayed, three weeks' time is granted to
learned counsel for the respondent(s) to file counter
affidavit(s). One week's time, thereafter, is allowed
for filing rejoinder affidavit.
10. List this matter after four weeks.
11 Considering the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that, till
the next date of listing, effect & operation of the
impugned orders dated 14.10.2021 & 28.10.2021,
shall remain stayed. Stay application (I.A. No. 1 of
2021) stands disposed of.
12. Let a certified copy of this order be issued
within 24 hours.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
