SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
S.Senthilkumar - Petitioner 
Versus 
The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Industries Department – Respondent 
W.P.Nos.13581, 13584 of 2022, W.M.P.Nos.12792, 12794, 12798, 12799 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Sc For Mr.A.B.Rajasekaran
For the Respondent:Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General Assisted By Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Agp

The court emphasized that tender processes for natural resources must prioritize public interest and ensure the State receives fair value, reflecting discrepancies in price setting led to judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 - Tender process for quarry lease - The order dated 13.05.2022 cancelling the tender cum auction for Dunite was challenged by successful bidders - The court emphasized the obligation of the State to secure the best value of public resources and the significance of public interest in tender processes. (Para 16)

(B) Public Resources Management - The court discussed the distinction between natural resource tenders and mere commercial transactions, reinforcing that the State should act to enhance the public exchequer. (Para 16)

(C) Discrepancies in Lease Price - An enquiry revealed significant discrepancies in the fixing of the upset price for the quarry, leading to the cancellation of the tender. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners participated in a tender process for quarrying Dunite, successfully bidding amounts of Rs.3,20,00,000/- and Rs.3,30,00,000/- but faced cancellation of the tender based on allegations of irregularities following complaints from a competitor. (Paras 4, 11)

Findings of Court:
Both writ petitions were dismissed but the petitioners were entitled to a refund of their earnest money deposit with interest, allowing future participation in a renewed tender process. (Para 19)

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the tender was justified based on post-auction complaints, and how to value natural resources in public interest. (Para 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation was deemed justified as the upset price was improperly fixed, diminishing competition and revenue for the State, necessitating judicial intervention to protect public interest. (Paras 16, 18)

Result: Both writ petitions dismissed, with EMD to be refunded.

Table of Content
1. the rules regarding quarry lease for dunite. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' involvement and responses to alleged irregularities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. discrepancies in upset price and government revenue loss. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments regarding the validity of the cancellation order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's reasoning on public interest and financial implications. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. supreme court guidance on the importance of proper tender assessment. (Para 17 , 18)
7. conclusion of dismissal of writ petitions with conditions. (Para 19)

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The present two writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent, dated 13.05.2022 bearing Roc No.504/2017/Mines-A, wherein and whereby the tender cum auction conducted on 25.02.2021 for the areas in respect of Dunite mineral mentioned in serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the impugned order was cancelled and it was ordered to refund the Earnest Money Deposit to the petitioners herein.

2.It is the case of writ petitioners that by a notification bearing S.O.No.423(E) dated 10.02.2015, the Government of India declared certain minerals to be minor minerals in addition to the then existing minor minerals. The Government of Tamil Nadu has amended the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules , 1959 [‘TNMMC Rules’ for short] and inserted a new rule in order to govern the grant of quarry lease for the newly notified minerals by G.O.Ms.No.70, Industries (MMC.1), dated 22.04.2016 and also fixed the seigniorage fees for Dunite at Rs.30/- per tonne. The Government also has further prescribed tender cum auction application for the grant of quarry lease for minor minerals. Since the Salem district is rich with certain minerals, the Government has executed various leases for quarrying the minerals. As several people were involved in illegal mining activities in and around Salem, several complaints have been lodged in this aspect. Pursuant to such complaints, the second respondent appointed the officials to inspect and report the same in order to curb the illegal mining and to bring such government lands under the purview for grant of quarry lease. The third respondent has decided to conduct tender cum auction lease for Dunite in Survey Field No.14/1 measuring 4.15.5 hectares and 4.20.5 hectares in Chettichavadi village.

3.It is stated that a geological report was also conducted by the district administration for Dunite deposits over the above said extent of lands. A detailed technical report was also issued by the Assistant Geologist, Department of Geology and Mining, Salem in respect of the said lands. The field inspection was also conducted by the officials. Thereafter, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 08.07.2020 granted permission to the third respondent to initiate action for tender cum auction under Rule 43 of the TNMMC Rules. The third respondent had issued tender notification in the Government Gazette of Salem district bearing reference Roc No.504/2017/Mines/A, dated 05.02.2021 and had prescribed various conditions for the issuance of tender for quarry for Dunite for a period of ten years in respect of aforesaid two extents of lands in Chettichavadi village. The tender notification inter-alia stipulates that if any major minerals are found by the successful bidders or lessees while quarrying or if any precious gemstones / crystals are found, the same have to be surrendered to the respondents herein failing which criminal proceedings will be initiated against them. The third respondent by proceedings dated 23.02.2021 had appointed Assistant Director, Mines and Assistant Geologist and other officials to fix the upset price for the subject lands forming part of the tender. Thereafter, pursuant to the report furnished by the officials, the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,97,17,535/- and Rs.2,64,08,497/- respectively. However, the third respondent determined the upset price at Rs.2,10,00,000/- and Rs.2,75,00,000/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top