MASIHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Farooq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 representing the Mining Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby while responding to the recommendation dated 26.11.2014 of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani for settlement of Balughat at Madhubani with the petitioner, a direction has been issued to hold a fresh auction in the interest of Government revenue.

(2.) It is the argument of Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is after three round of exercise undertaken by the respondent-Department that finally the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be the most appropriate and since it was above the reserve Jama hence the Collector, Madhubani while discussing the matter in detail, has recommended for settlement in his favour vide letter dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure-10) and with a reminder on 27.12.2014 placed at Annexure-11 but it has been responded to by the impugned order.

(3.) He submits that in the first round there was no tenderer responding to the notice which resulted in second round tender in which it was the petitioner alone who applied and thus while maintaining the offer made by petitioner that the department went for a third tender in which one more person, namely, Tej Narain Yadav only applied, however since the technical bid of said Tej Narain Yadav was rejected, it left the petitioner alone in the contest.