Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 581
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
AMITAVA ROY and VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Chaina Ram – Appellant
vs
State of Rajasthan and others – Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 574 of 2014
Decided On : 23/04/2014
The tender opening committee's omission to recommend the highest valid tenderer as provisionally selected tenderer under Rule 35(ix) of the Rules does not violate the Rule, as the competent authority has the power to sanction or reject the provisionally selected tender under Rule 35(xii).
Headnote:
MINING LEASE - REJECTION OF BID - RULE 35 OF THE RAJASTHAN MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1986 - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Chaina Ram, challenged the rejection of his bid for a mining lease and the initiation of a fresh process for the same. The appellant's bid was lower than that of M/s. Kuber Associates, which was rejected for non-compliance with Rule 35(vi)(d) of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (the Rules). The appellant argued that the tender opening committee was obligated to provisionally select him as the highest valid tenderer under Rule 35(ix) before referring the matter to the competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tender opening committee's omission to recommend the appellant as the provisionally selected tenderer did not violate Rule 35(ix) of the Rules. The court reasoned that Rule 35(xii) empowers the competent authority to sanction or reject the provisionally selected tender, and therefore, the tender opening committee's recommendation is not final. The court also found that the State Government's decision to reject the appellant's bid and initiate a fresh process was not arbitrary or illogical, given the significant difference between the appellant's bid and that of M/s. Kuber Associates.
Issues: 1. Whether the tender opening committee was obligated to provisionally select the appellant as the highest valid tenderer under Rule 35(ix) of the Rules. 2. Whether the State Government's decision to reject the appellant's bid and initiate a fresh process was arbitrary or illogical.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 35(ix) and (xii) of the Rules must be read together to determine their collective existence and bearing on the tender process. 2. Rule 35(ix) does not confer an unbridled discretion on the tender opening committee to not select the highest valid tenderer as provisionally selected tenderer. 3. The competent authority's power to sanction or reject the provisionally selected tender under Rule 35(xii) demonstrates that the tender opening committee's recommendation is not final. 4. The State Government's decision to reject the appellant's bid and initiate a fresh process was not arbitrary or illogical, given the significant difference between the appellant's bid and that of M/s. Kuber Associates.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the findings in the impugned judgment and order were based on a correct appreciation of the facts and did not call for any interference.
” The subject-matter of challenge is the judgment and order dated 14.3.2014 rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5787/13 dismissing the appellant-writ-petitioner ” s assailment of the decision of the State Government rejecting the bid offered by him for securing the mining lease in question and ordering initiation of a fresh process therefor.
2. We have heard Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant-writ-petitioner.
3. For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it essential to issue formal notice to the respondents.
4. A summary version of the relevant facts would outline the backdrop. A Notice Inviting Tender (for short, hereinafter referred to as ' the NIT' ) dated 20.11.2012 was issued by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for grant of mining lease for excavation of river sand (bajri) from rivers, drain, nadi, nala, bhala etc. recorded as gair mumkin in the revenue records of various revenue villages of Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali. In response thereto, one M/s. Kuber Associates and the appellant herein i.e. Chaina Ram offered their bids to the tune of Rs.8,65,00,000/- and Rs.5,21,00,000/- respectively. As proclaimed, the tender process was to be governed by Rule 35 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, hereafter referred to as ' the Rules' ). Rule 35 (vi) mandated inter alia that every tender shall be accompanied by power of attorney in case the tenderer is a partnership firm/association of persons and resolution of board of Directors in case of company, as the case may be, in terms of subclause (d) thereof. Though the bid offered by M/s. Kuber Associates was higher than that of the appellant herein by Rs. 3,44,00,000/-, it was adjudged to be not in conformity with the above stipulation as its tender was not accompanied by power of attorney as required. The tender opening committee thus rejected its bid on this ground and referred the matter to the Director, Mines and the Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan for appropriate decision having regard to the interest of the revenue. In turn, the Director, Mines, Government of Rajasthan by his communication dated 17.4.2013 directed the Superintending Mining Engineer to issue a fresh NIT for grant of the mining lease for the area in question. The NIT as required was issued on 6.5.2013. Stirred by this initiation, the appellant as well as M/s. Kuber Associates sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by instituting S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.5787/2013 and 5834/2013. Incidentally, by the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal, both these writ petitions have been dismissed.
5. The State-respondents in their reply pleaded that the tender furnished by M/s. Kuber Associates was not in compliance of the mandatory requirement contained in Rule 35(vi)(d) of the Rules and thus, was rightly adjudged to be invalid. According to them, the bid of the appellant-Chaina Ram was not accepted being much lower than that of M/s. Kuber Associates and further keeping in mind the interest of the revenue of the State. The respondents in their reply mentioned inter alia that in response to the fresh NIT the highest bid received was of Rs.13,78,00,000/-.
6. Whereas before the learned single Judge, the learned counsel for M/s. Kuber Associates argued on the aspect of invalidation of its bid seeking to disinter its true purport as perceived by it (M/s. Kuber Associates), the learned counsel for the appellant-herein with reference to Rule 35 (ix) insisted that in terms thereof following the rejection of the bid of M/s. Kuber Associates, the offer of the appellant-Chaina Ram being the next highest and valid in all respects, the tender opening committee was under an obligation to provisionally select him for being awarded the mining lease before referring the matter to the competent authority to take a decision for sanction or rejection thereof. It was
