Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, MANOJ BAJAJ
Nishant Traders – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. As on 14.8.2017 the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken a decision to grant all leases for minor minerals by way of e-tendering-cum-e-auction, tenders were invited from bidders at large with regard to mining leases of various mining areas of the district of Basti. The petitioner was interested to get the mining lease of the plots situate in village Mahua Kalan, Khand-II having plot nos.757, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 810, 811 and 812 the area of which was 4.249 hectares. Though a certain minimum reserve price was given for price to be offered by the participants in the e-auction, the petitioner made an offer of Rs.557/-per cubic meter for the mineral which was available. The petitioner being the highest bidder was offered a Letter of Intent on 13.11.2017 stating therein that he was required to deposit immediately within two days the 25% of the royalty of the first year as security money and 25% of the royalty of the first year as the first installment.
2. For making the bid the petitioner had deposited Rs.19,33,295/-as earnest money as was the requirement of the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner had applied for pa
The court clarified the specific penalty that could be imposed for non-compliance with the mining plan provision within one month of receiving the Letter of Intent, and emphasized the requirement for....
The court established that forfeiture of security deposits and royalty payments requires explicit legal authority, which was absent in the relevant rules governing mining leases in Uttar Pradesh.
The authority can forfeit a mining lease security deposit for non-payment of lease installments under the terms established in the lease agreement, affirming contractual obligations.
Compliance with mining lease terms is essential for valid surrender; failure to pay dues justifies lease termination and forfeiture of security deposit.
The court established that a successful bidder in an e-auction must comply with the specified conditions, and failure to do so can result in forfeiture of bid security and debarment from future aucti....
Forfeiture of earnest money in mining lease applications is only permissible when there is evidence of false documentation; procedural requirements lacking a penal clause are considered directory.
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
The court established that tender conditions are primarily the domain of project authors unless proved arbitrary.
The authority must provide adequate reasons for the complete forfeiture of a security deposit, especially when a lesser penalty has been imposed and already paid.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
