Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg
CWP No. 15431 of 2014
M/s Haryana Royalty Company
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 15/01/2015}
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate; Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amar Vivek, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Headnote:Auction Sale--Forfeiture of Earnest money--Where on account of a mistake by the seller, the buyer refuses to perform his part of the agreement/contract then forfeiture of earnest money by the seller is wholly unjustified and impermissible in law.
(A) Auction Sale--Forfeiture of Earnest money--Where on account of a mistake by the seller, the buyer refuses to perform his part of the agreement/contract by not depositing the balance amount and the seller forfeits the earnest money in pursuance thereof, the said action of the seller is wholly unjustified and impermissible in law. (Para 28)
(B) Auction Sale--Minor Mineral--Area of the quarry/land was not demarcated or survey by the authorities prior to putting the same to auction--It was only after persistent request by the petitioner, the highest bidder, the area was demarcated and was found that 395.44 hectare of land auctioned was reduced to 255.41 hectare--Held; since the area has been found to be less at the spot, the authorities by their act of misrepresentation and breach of duty by not conducting the demarcation before the auction, they are estopped from charging amount for 395.44 hectare--They cannot take shelter of condition in auction notice that auction bidder is expected and presumed to have surveyed the area to make his own assessment for the potential of the area--Authorities directed to refund the auction bid without any forfeiture or penalty.
Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, J.: - By way of this judgment, we will dispose of 11 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.15377, 15428,15430, 15431, 15432, 18000, 18019, 24573, 24576, 24636 and 24637 of 2014, involving common question of law and facts.
2. In order to effectively address the issues involved in the said writ petitions, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present case are being culled out and taken from CWP No.15431 of 2014.
3. State of Haryana advertised auction of minor mineral units containing number of mining block and villages to the general public in the districts of Panchkula, Ambala and Kurukshetra vide auction notice dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure P-1). In the present writ petition under reference, 395.44 hectare of land under mines was lined up for auction in respect of “District Panchkula Unit-I”.
4. In pursuance to the said auction notice, the petitioner participated in the aforesaid auction and gave its bid of Rs.52 Crores per annum against the reserve price of Rs.16.50 Crores per annum in respect of Boulder Gravel and sand minor mineral mines/quarries of Panchkula Unit-I having total area of 395.44 hectares divided into 2 blocks having 15 number of mines. Block No.1 was having 7 mines situated in 7 different villages with particular Khasra numbers while Block No.2 was having 8 mines situated in different villages with specific Khasra numbers. In pursuance to the bid, the petitioner was declared successful bidder. Accordingly respondents issued letter of intent dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner. As per clause 3(i) of the letter of intent (Annexure P-2), “the period of contract shall be 7 years and the same shall commence with effect from the date of grant of environmental clearance by competent authority or on expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of this communication of acceptance of highest-paid/issuance of “letter of intent”, whichever is earlier.
5. Upon receiving the letter of intent, the petitioner wrote to the respondents to provide with the fard Jamabandi and aks-shajara of all the Khasra numbers of all the villages shown in the auction notice. In addition thereto, he also requested the respondents to carry out the demarcation of the area with the help of Revenue Department in the presence of the petitioner so that the petitioner can start the survey for the preparation of mining plan and environmental impact assessment and obtain the EMP Clearance within the stipulated timeframe of 12 months, as stated above.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 14.03.2014 sent a reminder to the respondents to get the area demarcated as per the letter of intent. Yet again, the petitioner vide letter dated 27.03.2014 requested the respondents to carry out the demarcation of the area as early as possible in-as-much as the signing of the agreement could only be undertaken after the demarcation takes place and further that since the demarcation was delayed for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, therefore, the time period for signing of the agreement be extended as provided in the Mining Rules. Since demarcation of the area could not take place within the time stipulated, the respondents extended the time period for execution of the contract agreement/lease deed in respect of letter of intent, vide letter dated 23.04.2014.
7. It was also understood by the petitioner, that in large number of quarries auctioned by the State, there is variation between the area notified for auction and quarry actually available on-site.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that after relentless and untiring efforts, actual demarcation of the area was carried out by the respondents from 10.03.2014 till 08.05.2014. On the basis of the said demarcation, it transpired that there was difference in the area in different quarries and thus accordingly the petitioner vide letter dated 04.06.2014 and 11.06.2014 requested the respondents for issuance of corrected letter of intent in respect of the Bou
