Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Arawali Resources LLP – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6866, 6870, 6884 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
E-Auction - Mining Lease and Bid Security - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (Rule 14(10), Rule 14(11), Rule 16(3), Rule 13(6)) - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, particularly focusing on the obligations of successful bidders under Rule 14(10) regarding document submission and payment of the premium amount. The court interpreted these rules to affirm that failure to comply results in forfeiture of bid security and a five-year debarment from future auctions, as outlined in Rule 14(11). The court emphasized the clarity of the auction conditions and the necessity for bidders to understand and accept these terms prior to participation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the forfeiture of Rs. 40,00,000/- earnest money and a five-year debarment from future auctions by the Director, Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, following the petitioner's failure to submit required documents and the first installment of the premium amount after being declared the successful bidder in an e-auction for a mining lease.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was aware of the requirements under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, and failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the e-auction notice. The court held that the forfeiture of the bid security and the debarment were justified under the rules, as the petitioner did not fulfill the obligations after being declared the successful bidder.
Issues: Whether the conditions in the e-auction notice were ambiguous and whether the forfeiture of the bid security and debarment from future auctions violated the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conditions in the e-auction notice were clear and unambiguous, and the petitioner, having participated in the auction, was bound by these terms. The court emphasized that the forfeiture of the bid security and the debarment were in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 14(10) and Rule 14(11).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the order of forfeiture and debarment as lawful and justified under the applicable rules.
ORDER :
1. Though the matter is listed in the fresh category, However on joint request of the counsel for the parties the matter is being heard today itself.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan at Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur dated 15.04.2024 (Annex.15) whereby the Earnest Money Deposit (‘EMD’) amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- has been forfeited and the petitioner has been debarred from participating in auction proceedings for a period of 5 years. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondents not to finalize granting of mining lease for the Minor Mineral Bajri (River Sand) for Plot No. BJ-05 situated at Revenue Village Akola, Tehsil Sawaipur, District Bhilwara under the E-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 (Annex.2), and also not insist upon the deposition of 40% of the premium amount quoted, till clarification is not provided by the respondents as sought by the petitioner is not provided. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents may not be allowed to conduct fresh auction for the said plot. Certain other ancillary relief(s) have also been sought by the petitioner.
3. These writ petitions, S.B.C.W.P No. 6866/2024 and 6870/2024 along with the present writ petition are being decided by this common order, however, facts of SBCWP No. 6884/2024 are illustratively taken for consideration.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the respondent no. 2 issued an E-auction notice bearing No. ML Bajri II/2024/E-05502 dated 06.03.2024 (Annex.2) for 14 plots for Minor Minor Bajri situated in District Bhilwara and Sirohi. The petitioner participated in the E-auction for the Plot No. BJ-05 through a Bid on 23.03.2024 (Annex.3), quoting its bid at Rs. 85,99,43,240/-along with submitting Rs. 40,00,000/- as earnest money and the requisite documents. Thereafter, the auction took place on 28.03.2024 and on the same day, vide a mail (Annex.4), the petitioner was declared as a successful bidder and was thereby asked to submit the relevant documents as provided under Rule 14(10) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (‘Rules of 2017’), failing which the bid security would be forfeited and the petitioner would be debarred from participating in future e-auctions for 5 years. Furthermore, a challan dated 30.03.2024 (Annex.5) had been issued by the respondent no. 3 against the bid security/earnest money deposited by the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 40,00,000.
5. In response to the said intimation mail (Annex.4), petitioner submitted a letter dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.6) stating that the requisite documents have already been submitted on 23.03.2024 before the respondent No. 4, Mining Department and vide the same letter, also sought clarification with respect to the terms and conditions regarding maximum sale price at pit mouth for sale of mineral Bajri.
6. Subsequently, the respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 04.04.2024 (Annex.7) directed the petitioner to submit requisite documents along with the first installment of 40% of the premium amount after adjusting the bid security amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The petitioner also furnished a letter dated 05.04.2024 (Annex.10) seeking clarifications on the contradictory and ambiguous terms and conditions of the e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 and thereafter reminders letters dated 09.04.2024 (Annex.11) and 11.04.2024 (Annex.12) were also sent seeking clarification on the above-mentioned grounds, to which the respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 13.04.2024 (Annex.13) specified that no clarifications are to be given, since the e-Auction Notice itself is clear on the said grounds. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted another letter dated 14.04.2024 (Annex.14), claiming the said conditions of e-Auction Notice to ambiguous and impossible.
7. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2, vide order dated 15.04.2024 (Annex.15), forfeited the bid security amount o
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.
The forfeiture of earnest money for failure to increase the bid price by a sole bidder was invalid due to a vague show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural jus....
The court clarified the specific penalty that could be imposed for non-compliance with the mining plan provision within one month of receiving the Letter of Intent, and emphasized the requirement for....
E-auction – Mistake in bid – While undertaking exercise of judicial review of matters relating to tenders, court has to strike a fair balance between interests of Government, which is always expected....
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
