JYOTI PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners case is that in response to a tender notice, which was issued by the Mineral officer, respondent No : 2 herein, he offered the highest bid of Rs. 31,000/ - for extraction and sale of minor minerals from river Tawi, during the year 1972 -73 and at the same in deposited the first instalment of royalty and security sum with the respondents. A dead of agreement was to be drawn between the State Jammu & Kashmir and the petitioner, but only after the former had accorded its sanction accepting the offer made by him. This sanction was never accorded, as a result of which no formal deed of agreement in terms of Section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir came to be executed between the parties. The petitioner could not operate the lease in absence of any such deed even though the work order was issued to him on provisional acceptance of his bid. He has, therefore challenged the order for recovering Rs. 24, 454/54 from him on account of royalty dues as arrears of land revenue. The grounds of challenge are, that no such recovery could be made in the absence of a valid agreement as contemplated by Sec. 122 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, that respondent No. 2 having no authority to issue a tender notice, no valid contract could be founded upon it, that the petitioner having failed to work the lease in the absence of a valid agreement no arrears of royalty could be claimed from him and that Sec. 25 of the Mines and Minerals (R&D Central Act of 1957 and Sections 90 and the J&K Land Revenue Act were ultra vires of Constitution.

(2.) THE case of the respondents on other hand is that the disposal of the lease to take place through open auction for which a notice was issued by respondent No: 2 in conformity with Govt. Order No : 64 -MNG dated 4 -2 -1970 which was later on confirmed by the Director Geology & Mining on 7th June, 1972. The petitioners bid for Rs. 31,000/ - being the highest received in the open auction, which was conducted by the Auction Committee, for the said purpose by the Government, was accepted, and the petitioner too appended his signatures to the bid sheet thereby acknowledging the conclusion of a valid contract between the parties. The Government later on accorded sanction on 9 -12 -1972, and the petitioner was called upon to execute the required agreement and a registered letter was also written to him on 9 -1 -1973 in that behalf, but he deliberately avoided doing so. The petitioner having worked the lease for full term, and to his best advantage was bound to pay the dues to the respondents even on the principle of quantum merit even though a valid contract within the meaning of Sec. 122 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir was also spelled out from the correspondence which ensued between the parties. The respondents have denied either that Sec. 25 of the Mines and Minerals (R & D) Central Act, 1957 or Sections 90 and 91 of the J&K Land Revenue Act were ultra vires of the Constitution.

(3.) THE claim of respondent No: 1 to recover royalty dues is based upon mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner for which admittedly no formal deed ever came to be executed between the parties within the Meaning of Sec. 122 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. Mr. Singh, however, relies upon contract which, according to him, is clearly spelled out from the caution notice issued by the Mining officer, respondent No. 2, and the signatures of the petitioner as well as of the three members of the Auction Committee constituted for the purpose by the Government vide order No: 64 -MMG of 1970 dated 4 -2 -1970, appearing on the bid, sheet, in token of the acceptance of the petitioners bid, which was the highest, followed by the work ordered issued in his favour by respondent No: 2. Let us, therefore, examine whether these documents are capable of constituting a binding contract between the parties.