IMPORTANT POINT
The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, allow for the forfeiture of bid security and debarment from future bidding without the necessity of a hearing when a bidder fails to comply with the stipulated conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing the present special appeal (writ), the appellant has challenged the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6866/2024.

2. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel submitted that the appellant had challenged the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, who for failure of the appellant to deposit 40% of the bid amount and other documents as required under Rule 14(10) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2017’) forfeited the bid security of Rs. 40,00,000/-deposited by the appellant-Company and debarred it from taking part in any future e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years.

3. While challenging the decision of the Director, Mines and Geology, learned Senior counsel submitted that the aforesaid order was illegal and contrary to the facts, inasmuch as the Department did not clarify the rates to be charged for the mineral sold, despite the fact that a clarification was sought by the appellant-Company. It was also argued that while cancelling appellant’s-Company bid, the Director (Mines) had debarred and black-listed the appellant for a period of five years, which is contrary to the provisions of Rules 14(10) and 14(11) of the Rules of 2017.

4. Learned Senior counsel read condition No. n (5) of the important points appended with e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 and pointed out that as per this condition, the maximum rate to be charge at pit mouth has been fixed as 4 times the royalty which shall include DMFT, RSMET and all taxes & loading but as no sale can be affected on pit mouth because of the order of the CEC and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, such condition was illegal. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the letter/representation which the petitioner had written to the respondents and pointed out that the appellant had sought a clarification as to what would be permissible rate when the mineral (bajri) is sold from the depot which is to be established within a distance of 2 kilometer. Learned counsel argued that in absence of clarification in this regard, the appellant was unable to plan its affairs as establishment of depot and transportation/ movement of bajri to the depot from the pit mouth involves substantial cost.

5. It was contended by Mr. Bhandari that on the one hand the letters of the appellant were mechanically responded by the respondents and no clarification was given, due to which the appellant could not deposit the 40% of the bid (Rs. 56, 21, 42,000/-) by 30.03.2024 as required in letter of acceptance sent with the e-mail dated 04.04.2024 and on the other hand immediately on passing of 10.04.2024 (the deadline given in letter of acceptance) the impugned order was passed.

6. Learned counsel submitted that such arbitrary action of the respondents, whereby not only appellant’s right to get mining rights have been taken away but also huge money of Rs.40,00,000/-being bid money has been forfeited and even the order of debarment has been passed, was challenged by way of filing writ petition but the Writ Court has erroneously non-suited it.

7. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding the decision of the Director, Mines and Geology. He argued that debarring the Company from taking participation in future e-Auction proceedings, amounts to black-listing and the same cannot be done without affording any opportunity of hearing.

8. Learned Senior counsel further drew the Court’s attention towards Note No. 4 of the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 and submitted that as a consequence of said note, the appellant’s-Company will be debarred from taking part in any future e-Auction proceedings for a period of five years and the same clearly amounts to black-listing.

9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed relian