JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. Since the both instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, the above-numbered SBCWP No. 6020/2023, was tagged with SBCWP No. 5914/2023. Arguments in both petitions were heard together and the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6020/2023:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of directing:

(i) The respondents be directed to extend the contract of the petitioner for a period of one year in due consonance with amendment so brought to Rule 36(5) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 respectively.

(ii) The e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 (Annex- 5) for award of ERCC contract so issued by the respondents for the location of Rishabhdev, Khairwada DISTRICT Udaipur be quashed and set aside.

(iii) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the litigation may also be passed in the favour of the petitioner.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5914/2023:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of directing:

(i) The respondents be directed to extend the contract of the petitioner for a period of one year in due consonance with amendment so brought to Rule 36(5) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 respectively.

(ii) The e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for award of ERCC contract so issued by the respondents for the location of the Phalodi, Bap, Lohavat and Bapini (Denok, Barsingo ka Bas, Aau, Suwap and Santosh Nagar (Ishru) District Jodhpur be quashed and set aside.

(iii) Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the litigation may also be awarded in the favour of the petitioner.”

3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered SBCWP No. 6020/2023.

4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents issued a tender for award of ERCC Contract for collection of Excess Royalty-cum-DMFT, RSMET & other fees in relation to the excavation of Mineral Masonry Stone taking place in the Mines situated at Tehsil Rishabhdev & Khairwada, District Udaipur. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder, and accordingly, a sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was granted vide order dated 26.03.2021; whereupon, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 4 on 26.03.2021 itself; term of the contract was from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023.

4.1 The respondents, in light of the amendments so brought in Rule 36(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2017’), passed an order on 10.01.2022, formulating the guidelines for extension of the contract, keeping into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic.

4.2. Thereafter, the respondents issued an e-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for grant of ERCC contract, and the auction was scheduled to be held on 13.04.2023; however, now the auction has been scheduled to be held in the first week of May. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 20.03.2023 to the respondent no. 4 seeking extension of the contract in question; the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 29.03.2023, extended the contract period for 90 days or till execution o