Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/414/2023 on 22 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 414 OF 2023
22ND FEBRUARY, 2023
Between:
Jagdev Singh ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj
Tangwan, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Ms. Puja
Banga, learned Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand /
respondents
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the order dated 18.01.2023, the order
dated 27.01.2023, order dated 28.01.2023, and the
order dated 10.02.2023.
2
2) The first order dated 18.01.2023, revises the
royalty rates in respect of mining in the State. We see
no merit in the challenge to the said order, inasmuch,
as, it is for the State to determine the royalty that it
charges for the activities of mining. The challenge to the
order dated 18.01.2023 is devoid of any force, and is
rejected.
3) The petitioner had participated in an open
tender initiated by the respondent on 24.12.2022. The
said tender was for the purpose of dredging in river
Yamuna. The bidders were, under the terms of the
tender, not only required to dredge the river, but also
were entitled to remove the RBM and silt, and
appropriate the same. The petitioner participated in the
said tender, and on 24.01.2023, the petitioner was
found to be the highest bidder. Before the bid of the
petitioner could be accepted, in the light of the revision
of the royalty in respect of RBM etc., vide order dated
18.01.2023, the respondents decided not to proceed
with the tendering process. The petitioner is aggrieved
by the said decision of the respondents.
4) The submission of Mr. Rawat, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, is that the order dated
3
18.01.2023 was in respect of revision of royalty for
mining, and not for dredging. Therefore, according to
him, that could not have been cited as the reason for
cancellation of the tendering process, after the bids had
been opened, and the petitioner has been found as the
highest bidder.
5) We do not find any merit in this petition.
Firstly, no bidder has a vested right to claim a right to
the allotment of the contract, merely because such
bidder may have been found to be the highest or the
lowest bidder, as the case may be, as a tender is merely
an invitation to offer, and the offer has to be accepted,
which has not happened in the present case. Before the
offer could be accepted, the respondents have decided
to recall the tender in the light of the revision of the
royalty, vide Government Order dated 18.01.2023.
6) The submission of Mr. Rawat that the revision
rates of royalty related only to the activity of mining,
and not to the activity of dredging, has no force, for the
reason that under the tender in question, the contractors
were expected not only to dredge the river, but also to
remove and commercially exploit the RBM and silt. The
later activity tantamounts to mining as defined under
4
Section 3(d) of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, which defines "mining
operations" to mean "any operation undertaken for the
purpose of winning any mineral".
7) For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 22nd FEBRUARY, 2023
Negi
