Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Ecosafe Infraprojects LLP – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6086, 6087 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
E-AUCTION - MINERAL CONCESSION - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 29 of the Contract Act, Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act - The court examined the legality of the e-auction notices for mining leases under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017. It highlighted the importance of clarity in auction terms, particularly regarding the commencement of mining operations post-environment clearance. The court interpreted the relevant rules to affirm that the mining lease duration begins upon registration, but operations can only commence after obtaining necessary clearances. The court concluded that the conditions in the auction notice were not ambiguous and upheld the auction process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s Ecosafe Infraprojects, challenged the e-auction notices for mining leases of minor mineral Bajri, claiming the terms were ambiguous and contradictory, particularly regarding the commencement of the lease period and the sale price of Bajri. The petitioner sought clarifications and a fresh auction process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions in the auction notice were clear and in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017. It ruled that the mining lease duration is five years from registration, but operations can only start after obtaining environmental clearance, which does not create ambiguity.
Issues: Whether the conditions in the e-auction notice were ambiguous and whether the petitioner was entitled to clarifications before participating in the auction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017 clearly stipulate that mining operations can only commence after obtaining environmental clearance, and the auction conditions were not contradictory as claimed by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the e-auction process and the conditions set forth in the auction notice.
ORDER :
1. Though the matters are listed in the fresh category, however, on the joint request of the counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard today itself.
2. These two writ petition have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the impugned e-auction notices dated 08.03.2024 and 06.03.2024 (Annex.2) respectively and to issue suitable clarification in respect of the issues raised by the petitioner and to conduct the-auction afresh after issuance of clarification sought. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents to conduct auction afresh only after issuance of suitable clarification and allow competitive participation of maximum of participant on the basis of clarity in the terms and conditions.
3. The facts illustratively are taken of SBCWP No. 6087/2024. In the writ petition, it is inter-alia stated that petitioner M/s Ecosafe Infraprojects is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) duly registered under the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 who participated in the e-auction process floated by the respondents for 14 plots of minor mineral Bajri (river Sand), wherein 7 plots pertained to District Bhilwara and 7 plots to that of District Sirohi as evident from the Resolution dated 27.03.2024 (Annex.1). The e-auction was scheduled for the dates 27.03.2024 and 28.03.2024 as per e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 (Annex.2) for ML Bajri II/2024/E-05502 and ML Bajri III/2024/E-05654 by which the petitioner is aggrieved to the extent that it has ambiguous and contradictory terms and conditions, which are against the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’) and thereby vitiates the whole tender process.
4. An order dated 19.02.2020 (Annex.3) was passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 10587/2019 by which the Central Empowered Committee (‘CEC’) was directed to deal with the issue related to the sand mining in the State of Rajasthan and submit a report regarding problems relating to Sand Mining. Thereafter the CEC submitted a report dated 23.12.2020 (Annex.4) before the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to aforementioned order. Furthermore vide judgment dated 11.11.2021 (Annex.5) passed in SLP No. 10587/2019, the recommendations of the CEC were approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
5. The petitioner furnished a letter dated 11.03.2024 to the respondents through mail dated 12.03.2024 (Annex.6) seeking clarifications on the contradictory and ambiguous terms and conditions of the e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024. A reminder letter dated 20.03.2024 (Annex.7) to the respondents requesting the respondents to issue clarifications of the e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024.
6. The petitioner meanwhile remitted an amount of Rs 11,800/-as application fee and Rs.41,00,000/- as bid security on 22.03.2024 through RTGS under batch No. 0122032410650 in anticipation of clarification to be issued by the respondents, however, no clarification was given by the respondents and thus, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.03.2024 (Annex.9) stating therein that the mining lease be granted through a transparent and fair process however, no clarification was given by the respondents and the petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 preferred this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of registration of lease deed shall be determined as laid down in the conditions of the NIT that the period of mining lease shall be five years from the date of registration of the lease and the same is ambiguous for the reason that as per Rule 16 (3) of the Rules of 2017, the mining lease shall be granted by the competent authority with a condition that lessee shall commence the mining operation after obtaining Environment Clearance (‘EC’). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that though the mining lease would be granted in favour of lessee, however, no mining
The court established that clarity in auction terms is essential, and the commencement of mining operations is contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance, as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Co....
The court affirmed that auction terms must provide legal certainty, and found no ambiguity in the terms of the e-auction for mining leases, thus upholding the auction process.
The court established that tender conditions are primarily the domain of project authors unless proved arbitrary.
DSRs approved with pre-auction compliance condition validate e-auctions of sand plots if following guidelines; Tribunal confines to environmental issues, dismissing contractual claims; mandates reple....
DSR approval with public consultation mandatory before sand mining auctions; compliant e-auctions upheld if plots from approved DSR via committees; Tribunal bars contractual claims like bid forfeitur....
E-auctions of sand mining plots valid post-approved DSR compliant with SSMG-2016/EMGSM-2020; contractual bidder disputes not cognizable by NGT; strict monitoring mandated for sustainable mining.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
