DEVENDRA MINERALS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the business of minerals and mining operations, has filed two separate writ petitions being W. P. No. 6377/2006 and W. P. No. 12011/2006. The main reliefs which are prayed for in w. P. No. 6377/2006 are reproduced as under:

(2.) FROM the aforesaid reproduction of the reliefs it is discernible that the reliefs which are prayed for in both the petitions are interrelated and the questions of fact and law involved in the petitions also being identical, both the petitions are heard together and a common order is passed.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience the facts of the case are referred to from W. P. No. 63 77/2006, which state that the M. P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. , the second respondent, was granted mining lease for extraction of Pyrophyllite and Diaspore by the State Government over an area of five hectares in village Kari of District tikamgarh. Tenders were invited by the second respondent for purchase of pyrophyllite material and pursuance thereof petitioner had submitted its tender on 28. 1. 2003. The tender of the petitioner was accepted by the second respondent vide order dated 7. 2. 2003 (Annexure P-l.) for purchase of Pyrophyllite from the kari Diaspore Pyrophyllite mines of the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 3300 tons at the rate of Rs. 351/per ton. The said order clearly stipulated that the entire quantity of Pyrophyllite was to be lifted within a period of 90 days and royalty/ commercial tax/sales tax and all other relevant taxes, if applicable, were payable additionally at the approved rates. The order dated 7. 2. 2003 also envisaged that all terms and conditions of the tender notice dated 28. 1. 2003 were applicable. Thereafter, another tender was floated by the second respondent for purchase of pyrophyllite Grade-II and the petitioner had submitted his bid on 25. 8. 2003, which was also accepted by the respondents for about 2000 tons of Pyrophyllite Grade-II at the rate of Rs. 529/- on the terms and conditions envisaged in the letter of acceptance dated 2. 9. 2003 (Annexure P-2 ). The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had completed the aforesaid work and had lifted the whole material under the aforesaid tenders but thereafter the respondents No. 2 and 3 did not invite any tender and, instead, granted the material/lease of the Kari mines to the fourth respondent i. e. M/s Katni Bauxite Ltd. in the year 2005. According to the petitioner, he made an application, Annexure P/3, to the third respondent for lifting the entire material of the mines @10% above the rates of the fourth respondent to whom the work was allotted but to no avail. In this background, the petitioner by filing the petitions has prayed for issue of directions to the respondents to stop all illegal activities in relation to Kari Mines of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.