K P KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Collector, Vellore notified in the District Gazette dated 2-3-1998 several sand and stone quarries, situate within his jurisdiction for tender-cum-auction so as to enable him to lease out the rights to quarry minerals to the successful bidders/tenderers under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The sand quarry bearing Survey No. 514/1 Seekarajapuram, Wallajah Taluk, and Survey No. 1, Perumudi Village, Vellore Taluk, were also brought for auction pursuant to the said notification. Sealed tenders were invited till 25-3-1998 and public auction was to be held on 26-3-1998. In the said public auction, the petitioner in W.P. No. 6110 of 1998 was the successful bidder with respect to the quarry bearing Survey No. 514/1, Seekarajapuram village and his bid was for a sum of Rs. 3,16,000/-. The petitioner in W. P. No. 6109 of 1998 was declared as the successful bidder with respect to S. No. 1, Perumugai village, and his highest bid was for Rs. 16,07,000/-. In both the cases, the petitioners, admittedly deposited 10% of the bid amount immediately on 27-3-1998 and 26-3-1998 respectively. Subsequently, on the ground that the balance 90% amounts were not deposited, the Collector in the order dated 20-4-1998 cancelled the bids of the said writ petitioners. Aggrieved against the same the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 have filed the same, to quash the order of the respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus.

(2.) The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6853 and 6852 of 1998 who are admittedly the second highest bidders with respect to the abovesaid quarries, have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue confirmation order in their favour with respect to the respective quarries.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 6109 and 6110 of 1998 has submitted that the Collector is not correct in rejecting their bids only on the ground that they have not deposited the 90% of the balance bid amounts within seven days from the date of the auction. According to the learned counsel, it is contrary to the tender conditions and to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. The learned counsel took me to clause 16 of the tender conditions, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :-(Vernacular matter is omitted ...Ed.)Again, in clause 20, it is stated as follows :-(Vernacular matter is omitted ...Ed.)Relying on the abovesaid conditions, the learned counsel has submitted that the balance amount of 90% should be paid only after receipt of the communication from the Collector. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied on Rule 8(6)(c) which reads as follows :-