OM SAINATH CARTING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Trusha K.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.

(2.) The challenge in this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to decision dated 30.06.2010 of the State Government, for re-inviting tenders for Block No. R-9, on the basis of findings of an undated inquiry report of the Senior Geologist who was the Inquiry Officer.

(3.) The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sand. By Government Resolution dated 30.07.2009, it was decided to award contracts in respect of eighteen Blocks for excavation of sand from the river Tapi, by holding a public auction. A public advertisement for purchase of the tender form and participation in the auction proceedings was issued by the respondents, in the month of October, 2009, and the date for purchasing the tender forms was 06.11.2009. The last date for submitting the tender form was 13.11.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its tender form, subject to various conditions mentioned therein. Different upset prices were fixed by the respondents for each Block / plot, according to their peculiar conditions. The auction was held on 18.12.2009. The offer of the petitioner was the highest for Block No. R-9, and was accepted by the respondents by taking the signature of the proprietor of the petitioner-firm on the papers of the auction proceedings. By letter dated 31.12.2009, the Geologist, Surat, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the bid amount as per the terms of the tender. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,12,500/- on 05.01.2010 in the Treasury Office. The petitioner also executed a surety bond and other necessary documents as per conditions of the tender. It is the case of the petitioner that as its bid was accepted and 25% of the bid amount was also deposited, the petitioner started creating necessary infrastructure for mining of sand, in anticipation of the execution of the formal agreement and receipt of the Work Order. Since the respondents did not execute an agreement/ contract with the petitioner or issue any Work Order, the petitioner wrote letter dated 06.01.2010 to respondent No. 2, requesting him to take further action in the matter. When nothing further was done, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 3046 of 2010. On the direction of the Court, the respondents took decision dated 30.06.2010 and placed it on the record of the petition, which was disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning decision dated 30.06.2010.