Authorities under Article 12 must ensure decisions reflect fairness and rationality, especially regarding individual circumstances such as health issues affecting compliance.

Judgment :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no.3 herein for quashing and/or cancelling the order dated 22.10.2024 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 26.08.2021 as passed by the respondent no.4/authority was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention herein that by the said order dated 26.08.2021, the respondent no.4/authority cancelled and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the writ petitioner in connection with the Auction ID:2021_WB_1818 of Sand Block Raina-II/Maniari/334(P)/A.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this court to page no.20 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the notice inviting e- auction for grant of mining lease of sand dated

21.01.2021 as issued by the office of the respondent no.4 authority. It is submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that in such e-auction process as floated under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules , 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Concession Rules of 2016’ in short) and West Bengal Minor Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Auction Rules of 2016’ in short), the writ petitioner is found to be successful highest bidder.

3. Drawing attention to page no.37 of the instant writ petition, Mr. Chaturvedi, further submits that from the copy of the notice dated 12.03.2021 as issued by the respondent no.5 authority, it would reveal that being a successful bidder in the said e-auction process the writ petitioner had deposited Rs.10,51,200/- while submission of the application for auction and by the self-same notice the writ petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,68,83,467/- i.e. the remaining portion of the 1/3rd of the bid amount soon thereafter and for which the writ petitioner was directed to appear in the office of the respondent no.5 authority.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that on 19.03.2021 the writ petitioner appeared before the respondent no.5 authority and prayed for extension of time on the ground of his illness and ultimately on 17.05.2021 he had again approached the respondent no.5 authority for grant of some more time to deposit the said 1/3rd bid amount within a month since at that material time he was discharged from Apollo Hospital, Chennai after a head, neck and scalp surgery.

5. Drawing attention to page no.74 of the instant writ petitioner being a tabular statement, it is contended by Mr. Chaturvedi that the writ petitioners approached the respondent authorities with a good number of bank drafts totaling to Rs.1,60,76,808/- towards the payment of 1/3^rd bid amount. However, the said amount was not received by the office of the respondent nos.4 and 5 authority and on the contrary the said respondent no.4 most unilaterally cancelled the bid as awarded in favour of the writ petitioner on account of alleged non-payment of 1/3^rd of the bid amount by his order dated 26.08.2021 which was impugned before the respondent no.3 authority by preferring a statutory appeal.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that the respondent no.3 authority while disposing of the said appeal and while passing the order under challenge dated 22.10.2024, however failed to consider the genuine predicament of the petitioner and thus most mechanically endorsed the view of the respondent no.4 authority without visualizing the relevant rules under the said Concession Rules of 2016 and the a