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.

JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioner’s writ petitions, challenging e-auction notices dated 06.03.2024 and 08.03.2024 and further prayer to issue clarification with respect to the issues raised by the petitioner and to issue mandamus to conduct re-auction, have been dismissed.

2. Quintessential facts, necessary and relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in these cases and as reflected from the pleadings and documents of the parties and the order of the learned Single Judge, are stated infra:

For brevity and convenience, facts stated in one of the two petitions raising common issues on similar facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6087/2024, reveal that the petitioner, a limited liability partnership, participated in the e-auction process floated by the respondents for auction of as many as 14 plots of minor mineral bajri (river sand). Out of these, 7 plots pertain to District Bhilwara and remaining 7 plots pertain to District Sirohi. E-auction was commenced with issuance of e-auction notices dated 06.03.2024 and 08.03.2024 for two different sets of plots, on identical terms and conditions. Under two auction notices, the auction was scheduled for 27^th and 28^th of March, 2024. The appellant submitted a letter dated 11.03.2024 to the respondents seeking clarification as according to his understanding, some of the terms and conditions were ambiguous and clouded with uncertainty. It was followed by a reminder on 20.03.2024. In the meantime, the appellant remitted an amount of Rs.11,800/- as application fee and Rs.41,00,000/- as bid security on 22.03.2024, which, according to the appellant, was in anticipation of clarification that may be issued subsequently. The appellant thereafter sent a legal notice on 22.03.2024 alleging that the auction proceedings were held without issuing any clarification on the uncertain terms and conditions. Therefore, auction be conducted through a transparent and fair process. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant proceeded to challenge the auction proceedings by filing two writ petitions on 06.04.2024. By that time, the auctions were finalised.

The challenge to the auction proceedings under two e-auction notices in respect of two sets of plots for grant of lease of minor mineral bajri (river sand) was essentially premised on following two aspects:

(A) Clause 1 of e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 is vague and uncertain as it only states that the period of lease would be five years from the date of registration of lease. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the said condition is ambiguous and uncertain for the reason that as per Rule 16(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2017’), the lease is required to be granted by the competent authority with a condition that lessee shall commence the mining operations after obtaining environmental clearance (hereinafter referred to as ‘EC’). Since no mining activities under the Rules can be carried out until and unless EC was granted by the competent authority, which takes fairly long period of about two years, it created an ambiguity and uncertainty, as in case the clearances are not granted, the very object and purpose of taking lease may be frustrated as the lease period or a substantial period of the lease period may expire without any mining activity. As the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra [2012 (4) SCC 629] mandates that the lease shall be granted only after EC, this aspect was required to be clarified as to what would exactly be the date of commencement of lease and without such a clarification, the appellant could not have participated in the auction process.

(B) Sub-clause (2) and (5) of Clause 11 of the e-auction notice dated 06.03.2024 are also highly amb