The court upheld the discretion of authorities in fixing EMD amounts for mineral auctions under amended rules, emphasizing limited judicial intervention in tender matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has impugned e-Auction Notice bearing No. DMO/J/e- Auction/2024-25/2198-2205 dated 24.01.2025, whereby the minor minerals blocks No. 34/JG “Jandial Khad at Village Aghore [34/JG](for short "the block 34/JG‟) and 37J “Jad/Dhok Khad upstream Taroti Jourian Bridge near Taroti Jourian, Jammu (for short "the block 37J‟), have been put to auction, to the extent that it fixes the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs. 13,23,945/- and Rs. 17,01,000/- for the blocks mentioned above respectively, in contravention to the procedure prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 (for short "the Rules of 2016‟).

2. The petitioner has stated that he has been participating in various Government contracts for the last more than 2 to 3 years and has been awarded various contracts by the Government. He further claims to have successfully completed the contracts allotted to him to the satisfaction of the Government. It is further stated that the fixation of the amount of EMDs of Rs. 13,23,945/- and Rs. 17,01,000/- for auctioning of both the aforesaid blocks 34/GJ and 37/J at Village Aghore and Village Taroti Jourian, Jammu respectively is contrary to Rule 55 of the Rules of 2016, as Rule 55 provides for earnest money not less than Rs. 1.50 lacs or 15% of the minimum bid amount whichever is higher in the shape of CDR pledged to Officer In-charge of the district. It is also stated that the blocks mentioned above were put for e-Auction vide No. DIP/J-7039 dated 18.11.2024 and in that e-Auction notice, EMD for the block 34/GJ and 37/J was fixed for an amount of Rs. 2,64,789/- and Rs. 3,40,200/- respectively and the respondents without taking e-Auction notice dated 18.11.2024 to a logical conclusion despite having wider participation, by means of impugned e-Auction notice, are again auctioning the same blocks. It is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 in terms of communication dated 21.11.2024 has communicated to all the Deputy Commissioners of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the revised documents required for participation and the conditions prerequisite for the grant of Mining Lease and Licenses and as per important instruction (b) of the said communication, the concessionary is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare as security deposit in the shape of a fixed deposit in favour of the Director for due observation of the terms and conditions of lease.

3. In a nutshell, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have fixed the EMDs for both the blocks as mentioned above in an arbitrary manner and without adhering to the Rule 55 of the Rules of 2016.

4. The respondents have raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by urging that the owner or the employer of the project, who has authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The right of an aggrieved party in respect of any condition of tender, to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of assailing the conditions of tender is very limited.

5. It is further stated that the extraction of minerals‟ licenses is regulated in terms of the Rules of 2016 as amended upto 24.12.2021 and in terms of Rule 55(3)(a) of the Rules of 2016, the amount of earnest money can be prescribed by the Government from time to time. It is f