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

2021 Supreme(All) 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY YADAV, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
M/s Ramraja Traders - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. 1868 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Udayan Nandan

Point of Law: Tender - State Government may, either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from date of communication of the order, call for examine record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by District Officer, committee, Director or Divisional Commissioner under these rules and pass such orders as it may think fit.

Headnote:

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, - Section 23(4) and 29A - Settlement of mining leases of sand/moram - petitioner after visiting the area participated in the bid by getting himself registered with all formalities with MSTC and after transfer of earnest money and application fee and the earnest money through RTGS applied online on MSTC Portal for grant of mining lease for the area in question Khand-1, Area 21 hectares of Village, Tehsil, District Banda. The bid of the petitioner @ Rs.207/ cubic meter being highest, was accepted. And as per Condition No.17 of the Government Order dated 14/08/2017 which was Condition No.19 of the Advertisement the petitioner was under an obligation to get the original documents verified within three days from the date of completing of e-tender. The petitioner however did not comply the said condition which led the respondent to issue Letter No.2698/Khanij-30, Banda - However, as the petitioner did not comply the same, the District Magistrate vide order forfeited the earnest money – whether the rights relate to life, liberty or property - whether the Central Government, when it hears and decides an appeal, can be said to be acting as a Court or tribunal. - whether State Government when it grants a lease is acting merely administratively - whether the Central Government when acting under R. 54 is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity or otherwise. - whether compoundable or not with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders - whether compoundable or not with effect till further orders - whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings - whether condonable or not stood extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further order.

Finding of the court: Orders which the Central Government passes, certainly fall within the words "determination" and "order". The proceeding before the Central Government also falls within the wide words "any cause or matter". The only question is whether the Central Government, when it hears and decides an appeal, can be said to be acting as a Court or tribunal. That the Central Government is not a Court was assumed at the hearing. But to ascertain what falls within the expression "Court or tribunal", one has to begin with "Courts". The word "Court" is not defined in the Companies Act, 1956. It is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code - Authorities are clear to show that there are tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court, which, nevertheless, are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power.... In that connection it may be useful to enumerate some negative propositions on this subject: 1. A tribunal is not necessarily a Court in this strict sense because it gives a final decision. 2. Nor because it hears witnesses on oath. 3. Nor because two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide. 4. Nor because it gives decisions which affect the rights of subjects. 5. Nor because there is an appeal to a Court. 6. Nor because it is a body to which a matter is referred by another body - Respondents were entitled for the benefit under order passed in SLP and it was within the competence of the Revisional Authority to condone the delay and entertain the Revision on merit. The first contention therefore fails.

Result: Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State- Respondents.

1. A Notice Advertisement was published on 13.09.2018 by District Magistrate, Banda for the settlement of mining leases of sand/moram under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for 5 mining Blocks, by e-tendering and as per Condition No. 13 (6) of the Government Order dated 14.08.2017 respective applicants had to deposit Rs.15,000/- as application fee and 25% of the bid amount as earnest money separately for each area. That term and condition no.19 and 22 (1) of the Advertisement stipulated that within three days from the date of acceptance of bid, the successful bidder shall deposit the requisites mentioned therein and that before participating in the bid the bidders were first require to satisfy themselves by physically verifying the determined quantity of mineral and the approach road to the site. These clauses are reproduced for ready reference:

    19- bZ&fuykeh lekIr gksus ds i'pkr 03 dk;Z fnol ds vUnj lQy cksyhnkrk dks vius ewy vfHkys[k dk lR;kiu ml tuin ds ftykf/kdkjh tgkW {ks= fLFkr gS] ds }kjk vFkok funs'kd] HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ] funs'kky; ds }kjk djkuk gksxkA funs'kd }kjk ewy vfHkys[k ds lR;kiu dh fLFkfr esa vfHkys[k&lRkiu dh vk[;k bZ&esy ds ek/;e ls lEcfU/kr ftykf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr dh tk;sxhA vfHkys[k&lRkiu ds i'pkr gh ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ysVj vkWQ bUVsaV tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA lR;kiu esa ;fn dksbZ vfHkys[k vFkok izek.k&i= dwVjfpr] vlR; vFkok xyr ik;k tkrk gS rks ysVj vkWQ bUVsaV tkjh ugha fd;k tkosxk rFkk c;kus dh /kujkf'k ¼vusZLV euh½ tCr dj yh tk;sxhA
    22- 'krsZa%&
    ¼1½ bZ&fufonk lg bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus ls iwoZ {ks= esa vkadfyr mi[kfut dh ek=k ,oa [kuu LFky ds fy, igqWp ekxZ vkfn ds lEcU/k esa ekSds dk fujh{k.k dj fcMj Lo;a vk'oLr gks ysaA bZ&fufonk lg bZ&fuykeh esa Hkkx ysus ds i'pkr bl lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk nkok Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA

2. The petitioner after visiting the area participated in the bid by getting himself registered with all formalities with MSTC and after transfer of earnest money and application fee Rs.15,000/-, and the earnest money Rs.1,57,50,000/- through RTGS applied online on MSTC Portal for grant of mining lease for the area in question, viz Gata No.3/1/1, Khand-1, Area 21 hectares of Village Barsanamanpur, Tehsil Narayani, District Banda. The bid of the petitioner @ Rs.207/ cubic meter being highest, was accepted. And as per Condition No.17 of the Government Order dated 14/08/2017 which was Condition No.19 of the Advertisement the petitioner was under an obligation to get the original documents verified within three days from the date of completing of e-tender. The petitioner however did not comply the said condition which led the respondent to issue Letter No.2698/Khanij-30, Banda dated 22/10/2018. However, as the petitioner did not comply the same, the District Magistrate vide order dated 24/1/2019 forfeited the earnest money.

3. In the interregnum i.e. between the period of acceptance of bid and the passing of order dated 24/1/2019, the petitioner visited this Court vide Writ-C No. 36068/2018 for the following directions:

    "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to accept the request of the petitioner with regard to the withdrawal of site for mining operation on plot no. 3/1/1 (Part-I) situated at Barsana Manpur, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda;

ii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to refund the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.09.2018 along with the interest @ 9% per annum;

iii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 25.10.2018 of the petitioner (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition);

iv. issue an appropriate writ, ord



            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