JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

Amendment Application (IA No. 03/ 2021)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Although time was granted to the respondents to file objection to the Amendment Application, but no objection has been filed. There is also no opposition to the Amendment Application.

3. Accordingly, the Amendment Application is allowed.

Amendments be incorporated during the course of the day.

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1122/ 2021

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents states that counter affidavit of the State-respondents is already on record, and the matter can be heard finally.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid stand of the learned Standing Counsel, we have heard the matter finally.

6. The petitioner participated in a tender process for a mining lease, in respect of Plot No. 1, Village Daulatpur Hazratpur @ Budhwashahid, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar held on 05.01.2021, as per the Uttarakhand River Training Policy, 2020. The bid of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,09,20,000/- was the highest and he was declared the successful bidder. The petitioner deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, i.e. Rs. 52,30,000/-, by means of different demand drafts, as per Condition No. 2 of the tender process. The remaining 75% amount was to be deposited within three days from the date of acceptance of the bid.

7. The case of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15178/2020, arising out of an order dated 07.12.2020, passed by this Court in a PIL questioning the Uttarakhand River Training Policy, 2020, granted an interim order on 05.01.2021, restraining the successful bidder(s) from removing any minor minerals from the River Bed or adjoining areas. The petitioner came to know of the said order through newspapers, and, therefore, on 07.01.2021, he enquired from the respondents, by sending a message on the mobile phone of the respondents, to guide him in respect of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court. On 23.02.2021, he filed another application before District Magistrate, Haridwar praying for issuance of work order so that the remaining amount is deposited. On the other hand, the respondents kept issuing notices to the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount. The case of the petitioner is that he did not get any response from the respondents, therefore, believing that the interim order puts a bar on all mining activities, he did not deposit the remaining 75% of the amount. The respondents advertised the same lot on 10.06.2021, and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the instant Writ Petition.

8. The petitioner, during pendency of the Writ Petition, by means of an Amendment Application, has also assailed the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue dated 10.06.2021, passed in his capacity as Chairman of the Auction Committee, whereby Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 52,30,000/- deposited by the petitioner, by way of earnest money and one-fourth of the bid amount have been forfeited, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the remaining 75% of the amount, as per Condition No. 2 of the tender document.

9. On 17.06.2021, an order of status quo was passed and, thereafter, on 21.06.2021, the respondents were restrained from taking any further steps in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 03.06.2021, and advertisement dated 10.06.2021. By notice dated 03.06.2021, the respondents required the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount, and start the work under the contract, failing which the earnest money would be forfeited.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not deposit the remaining amount, as it was never clarified by the respondents that the interim order granted by the Supreme Court was not in relation to the mining work granted to the petitioner. He further submits that in the counter affidavit itself, the respondents have accepted that they had sought leg