SADULLA SHAKUR SONDE Vs. COLLECTOR DIST RAIGAD ALIBAUG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside Notification dated March 11, 2003 and a public auction held in pursuance of the said Notification on March 19, 2003 and an Order/agreement issued in favour of respondent No. 5 by directing the respondent-authorities to hold fresh auction in accordance with law.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in the first petition (Writ Petition No. 2612 of 2003) is that a notification was issued on March 11, 2003 by the authorities for holding public auction for excavating sand from Savitri River and Bankot Khadi. Illegal auction was held and with a view to oblige respondent No. 5, his bid was accepted by the State Authorities in contravention of provisions of law and the petitioner and similarly situated persons were illegally deprived from participating at the auction. Several conditions which ought to have been observed before holding public auction were totally disregarded and ignoring public interest, final bid of Rs. 15,60,01,000/- of the fifth respondent has been accepted by the second respondent. The petitioner has stated that he is prepared to pay Rs. 17 crores. It is, therefore, prayed that the auction be set aside and fresh auction may be ordered.

(3.) SEVERAL contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the Notification was issued on March 11, 2003, and the auction was held on March 19, 2003. Under Rule 39-A of the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 1955 ("the Rules", for short), no public auction can be held, except in accordance with the Rules, which provide for fifteen days notice. It was also contended that 3% of the upset price was required to be paid at the initial stage. Since it was not paid by the fifth respondent, the action was not in conformity with the conditions of auction. The auction was held for two districts, which was not according to the Rules. Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be "competent Officer" as defined in the Rules, and he could not have exercised the power. The action is mala fide and has been taken in colourable exercise of power with a view to favour respondent No. 5 and, hence, the action is vitiated. It has also caused prejudice to public exchequer. It was given for Rs. 15,60,01,000/ -. The petitioner is prepared to pay Rs. 17,00,00,000/ -. The Counsel stated at the Bar that if this Court allows the petition and directs the authorities to hold fresh auction, the petitioner is prepared to accept it for Rs. 17,00,00,000/ -. It was also stated that if the fresh auction would not fetch that amount, the petitioner will pay the said amount, and the respondents may be directed to give contract to the petitioners. On all these grounds, it was submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities is clearly illegal, unlawful and liable to be set aside.