YOGESH ANAND AND CO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions arise in this petition :

(2.) The facts of the case are given as under:

(3.) The respondents in their written statement took preliminary objection that Ugrakheri-Sanoli sand zone of District Panipat was put to auction on 4.11.1996. Before auction was held, notice was issued and terms and conditions thereof were read over before start of auction, it was also made clear to the bidders that additional clauses 3-A and 18-A after clauses 3 and 18 respectively shall form part of the contract agreement to be executed in the form "L" of the State Rules. The petitioner-company was fully aware of the conditions of the auction notice which were conveyed to it while accepting the highest bid offered by it but it did not raise any objection on the said conditions. It has been further stated that the petitioner-company was permitted to start mining operation on 13.11.1996 and it has already settled compensation with the landowners of two villages as per its own admission and has also started mining operation in village Nagla. Therefore, the petitioner-company is now estopped by its own act and conduct from raising any objection in regard to the terms and conditions. It shows that the petitioner-company with malafide intention of not paying contract money to the State Government is trying to avoid execution of the contract/agreement while continuing with mining operation. It is admitted that the contract of this Zone was granted in favour of M/s Vinod Kumar and Company for the period from 1993 to 1996. Earlier the contract of sand quarries was given on village basis and in order to solve the problem of clashes/disputes between different contractors in regard to extraction of sand, encroachment of areas or usage of passages, a sand zone was created in these districts consisting of many villages in order to give monopoly and free access to contractors. As per the previous experience the contractor, at a time, extracts sand from 2-3 villages keeping in view the demand and requirement. It hardly matters whether sand is available in all villages or in a few villages, and at what level. It has been further stated that after participating in the open auction and having offered the highest bid, the petitioner-company cannot question the viability and availability of the mineral and plead that it was deceived or not apprised of the correct position. The public notice was published well in advance and it was open for the petitioner-company to satisfy itself about the availability of the sand in the villages and now it cannot be allowed to raise the objection regarding non-availability of sand in some of the villages. It has been further stated that the State Government can add or delete any condition of contract which is not contrary to the provisions of the law and rules keeping in view the circumstances. Accordingly, conditions 3-A and 18-A were incorporated. Further, it has been mentioned that this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2716 of 1995 (Bhim Sain Sharma v. State of Haryana,) has held that the additional conditions are not contrary to the rules.