Sharwan Ram Budiya vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Order 04/01/2023 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the disposal of his representation by the respondents dated 15.7.2022 (Annex.8) and seeking a direction to the respondents to issue LOI to the petitioner pursuant to the E-auction held by the respondents in terms of the advertisement dated 4.9.2020 (Annex.1). It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner applied pursuant to the E-auction held by the respondents in terms of the advertisement dated 4.9.2020 for plot no.32 at revenue village Rakhi, Tehsil Samdari, District Barmer. The (2 of 5) [CW-11426/2022] petitioner was the highest bidder and in terms of the requirement of the advertisement, the petitioner deposited 40% of the premium amount amounting to Rs.40,00, 580/- by a banker’s cheque dated 12.10.2020 along with requisite affidavit dated 12.10.2020. Despite the requisites done, when the LOI was not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1915/2022, which came to be decided on 4.2.2022, wherein, this Court directed the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. The petitioner made a fresh representation dated 8.2.2022 (Annex.6), which came to be decided by order dated 15.7.2022 (Annex.8) inter alia holding that as the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount within a period of 15 days from the date of E-auction along with the requisites, while forfeiting the bid security amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner was debarred for a period of 5 years from participating in E-auction. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 15.7.2022 (Annex.8) by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not deposited the amount along with requisites within a period of 15 days, is ex facie contrary to the record and, therefore, passing of the order by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions have been made that E-auction was held on 28.9.2020 and petitioner had deposited the requisites on 12.10.2020 along with a banker’s cheque dated 12.10.20202 and requisite affidavit dated 12.10.2022. Based on the affidavit, the respondents issued the no dues certificate on 19.10.2020, which (3 of 5) [CW-11426/2022] was duly produced by the petitioner with the respondents and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents by their order dated 15.7.2022 (Annex.8) cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the petitioner, though deposited the amount on 12.10.2020 along with affidavit, the banker’s cheque indicated the same as having been issued to Gogi Enterprises, whereas the petitioner had participated in the E- auction in his own name Sharwan Ram Budiya and, therefore, the same was not taken as within time. Further submissions have been made that the no dues certificate dated 19.10.2020, which was issued to the petitioner, was also produced belatedly on 5.11.2020 and on that count also, as the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 14(10) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules of 2017’), the order impugned does not call for any interference. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the amount deposited by the petitioner on 12.10.2020 (Annex.2) indicates that the requisite amount of Rs.40,00,580/- was deposited by the petitioner by way of a demand draft. Along with the same, the petitioner had also indicated to the respondents that demand draft has been purchased by petitioner’s proprietorship firm M/s Gogi Enterprises, regarding which, he produced his GST Registration. Along with the same, the petitioner produced an affidavit dated 12.10.2020, indicating the facts pertaining to the no dues in the department,

(4 of 5) [CW-11426/2022] based on which, the petitioner was issued a certificate dated 19.10.2020 by the department. Apparently, the period of 15 days from 28.9.2020 would have come to end on 13.10.2020 and prior to which the petitioner had deposited the demand draft for the 40% amount on 12.10.2020 along with the requisite affidavit, as such, it cannot be said that the amount was deposited by the petitioner beyond the requirements under Rule 14(10) of the Rules of 2017. The plea raised that the demand draft was purchased by M/s Gogi Enterprises is apparently of no consequence, inasmuch as, it was neither the case of the department nor it was put to the petitioner that as the demand draft has been purchased in the name of M/s Gogi Enterprises, the petitioner could not claim the same as having been deposited pursuant to the E-auction held by the respondents. Further, the petitioner had already clarified the fact that firm M/s Gogi Enterprises is his proprietorship firm and also produced its GST Registration and, therefore, the plea now sought to be raised in this regard, cannot be accepted. Besides the above, in case, the respondents were of the opinion that the demand draft, which was produced, did not pertain to the petitioner, instead of depositing the same, the respondents should have immediately returned it back to the petitioner, which has not been done by the respondents. Surprisingly, despite the fact that by order (Annex.8) the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of LOI, the amount has not yet been returned, which simply indicates the manner, in which, the respondents have been acting with regard to the E-auction held by (5 of 5) [CW-11426/2022] them and the purported compliance/non-compliance of the requirement. So far as the plea raised that the certificate issued by the department dated 19.10.2020 was produced by the petitioner on 5.11.2020 also is baseless, inasmuch as, once the department itself has issued the no dues certificate, to claim that the certificate should have been reproduced by the petitioner to the department for establishing his no dues, is expecting too much and essentially an attempt by the department to catch at straws only with a view to sustain its inaction in not issuing the LOI to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order dated 15.7.2022 (Annex.8) passed by the respondents, cannot be sustained, the same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue the LOI to the petitioner pursuant to the E-auction held by the respondents in terms of the advertisement dated 4.9.2020 on the petitioner doing the requisites, if anything further needs to be done by the petitioner. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. (ARUN BHANSALI),J 26-Sumit/-