ORDER :

The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner-firm challenging Notice Inviting Bid (ERCC vii)/22/942 dated 23.05.2020 inviting bids for royalty/excess royalty collection contract along with District Mineral Foundation Trust (in short ‘DMFT’) and other charges from the mining leases mentioned at S.No.4, 5, 7 & 8. The petitioner-firm also prays for direction to be issued for inviting fresh e-auction notice in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’).

2. The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that an e-auction notice dated 23.05.2020 was issued inviting bids for royalty/excess royalty collection contract along with DMFT and other charges from the mining leases situated in various Districts for a period till 31.03.2022. The petitioner-firm has a grievance with regard to the four mining areas/leases in revenue boundaries of the following Districts:-

a) Tehsil Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar for mineral masonry stone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.33,28,73,300/-.

b) Tehsils Bilada, Peepad and Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur for mineral limestone (minor mineral). The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.24,19,25,600/-.

c) Tehsil and District Jodhpur for mineral sandstone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.68,73,52,100/-.

d) Village Balesar Sata, Koi Jhodha Tehsil Balesar and villae Khirja Bhoja Sindha and Khirja Fatehsingh of Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur for mineral masonry stone and sandstone. The reserve price for the said contract was determined as Rs.27,11,33,300/-.

3. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that date for submission of the security deposit by the bidder was 03.06.2020 and the date for submitting the online bid was 04.06.2020. The petitioner-firm has further pleaded that Chapter VI of the Rules of 2017 provides for grant of royalty or excess royalty collection contracts and under Rule 37(3) of the Rules of 2017, procedure for e-auction has been prescribed. The petitioner-firm has submitted that as per the said Rule, the Notice Inviting Bids (for short ‘NIB’) was required to be published at least thirty days from the date fixed for submission of bids and thirty days period is counted from the date of publication of the NIB on the official website of the Department or on the website of the agency, appointed for auction.

4. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that in NIB issued on 23.05.2020, the date fixed for submission of bid was 04.06.2020 i.e. before expiry of the period of thirty days, as mentioned under the Rules and as such, the aforesaid violation, has occasioned a restricted participation and considering the uncertain conditions of COVID-19, the respondents ought to have granted adequate time and publicity to maximize the participation. The non-participation and violation of Rules of 2017 has resulted into prejudice to the public revenue.

5. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that for all the four revenue Districts, against which the petitioner-firm has grievance, limited number of contractors participated in the bidding process and if the technically qualified bidders are less than two, then no technically qualified bidder was to be considered as qualified bidder and the auction process is required to be annulled. The petitioner-firm has made a mention that for the revenue District Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar there were only two contractors who participated in the bidding process and similarly, for the revenue District Jodhpur, again there were only two contractors.

6. The petitioner-firm has further pleaded that for two other contracts i.e. for Tehsil Bilada, Peepad and Bhopalgarh and Tehsil Balesar and Shergarh, there were only three and four contractors including petitioner-firm and in fact one of the contractors was a dummy firm and even the prices were quoted just Rs.1 or 2 Lakhs above the reserve price.

7. The petitioner-firm has pleaded