RAJEEVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the resolution No.2 passed by the respondent No.2 - District Sand Monitoring Committee in terms of the proceedings dtd. 29/11/2021 insofar as it relates to declaring the petitioner as ineligible to bid for sand blocks in the land measuring 2.96 acres in Sy.Nos.52, 53 and 54, Arala Village of Bantwal Taluk and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the e-tender - cum - auction process dtd. 13/12/2019.

(2.) Sri.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt.Veena T.N., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent - authorities have issued notification dtd. 13/12/2019 for allotment of sand blocks in non-CRZ areas of coastal district under the provisions of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMMC Rules') for disposal of sand blocks through tender-cum-auction of coastal districts including land measuring 2.96 acres in Sy.Nos.52, 53 and 54, Arala Village of Bantwal Taluk on the bank of river Palguni. It is submitted that respondent No.2 - District Sand Monitoring Committee, vide its proceedings dtd. 29/11/2021, has declared the petitioner as an ineligible bidder by altering the requirements of stockyard area, after the tender process is complete. The respondent No.2 has increased the minimum requirement of stockyard to 0.50 acres which made the petitioner ineligible and rejected his bid.

(3.) It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 - Committee has arbitrarily altered the conditions after the tender process was completed only with an intention to favour other bidder by excluding the petitioner from the bidding process. The entire exercise of the respondent No.2 smacks mala fides as unrealistic requirement was imposed only with an intention to do the favour to the favourable bidder. The respondent No.2 - Committee is not competent to alter the conditions subsequent to the tender process contrary to the KMMC Rules. It is also submitted that no notice has been given to the petitioner before prescribing 0.50 acres of stockyard area. The action of the respondent No.2 - Committee is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 - Committee in the said proceedings, has arbitrarily altered the condition of maintaining a stockyard within the distance of 200 meters of the river bed to 500 meters. It is contended that the petitioner's stockyard is within the radius of 200 meters, hence the petitioner is not questioning the said modifications. However, the petitioner is only aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 - Committee abruptly prescribing minimum requirement of 0.50 acres of stockyard that too after the tender process was finalised. It is further contended that there were three bidders who participated in the tender process insofar as subject block including the petitioner herein and the respondent - authorities have made the petitioner ineligible by making one Sri.Narayan Panchame as the sole eligible bidder. However, the authorities subsequently found that the said sole bidder has produced forged documents to the extent of land offered by him for the purpose of stockyard, resultantly his bid was rejected on 20/1/2022. He seeks to set aside the impugned orders by directing the respondents to award the tender of subject block in favour of the petitioner.