LOHARIYA RAM BAROLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for issuing a direction for awarding to the petitioner firm a contract of collection of excess royalty on the terms and conditions of the auction dated 21. 3. 91 and in the alternative for writ of mandamus directing the respondents that the money deposited by the firm M/s Lohariya Ram amounting to Rs. 10,67,633/-be returned to the firm with interest @ 12%.

(2.) A notification was issued for holding a bid in the Bari and Basori, Tehsil Dholpur for collection of excess royalty for excavation of sand stone in Bari and Basori, Tehsil Dholpur. The auction was held on 21. 03. 1991. The petitioner was highest bidder. The notification of auction is dated 28th Jan. , 1991 published on 7th Feb. , 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he had participated in the auction through one Loharia Ram, a partner of the firm M/s Lohariya Ram as per the partner-ship deed. His highest auction was at Rs. 51,05,600/-and as per the condition of the auction, he had deposited on behalf of the firm 12. 5% of the bid money i. e. 6,39,200/-and advance instalment for one month of Rs. 4,25,467 and obtained a receipt, copy of which is Annex. 4 of the amount of Rs. 10,63,667/ -. The contract/agreement was to be signed immediately thereafter. The petitioner was asked to give security bond for the amount of the auction. The partners of the firm had submitted security bond to the Mining Engineer, it is so alleged. However, the Department refused to accept the security bond of the partner or to approve auction or to get the paper signed on behalf of the partners through M/s Loharia Ram on the ground that the auction was not given by the firm or any partnership-deed in the name of M/s Lohariya Ram was produced at the time of auction and he had given the bid only as an individual and therefore, Lohariya Ram was not entitled to get the paper signed and bid accepted in the name of firm Lohariya Ram. Even though it is stated in the written statement that the Department was prepared to give contract to Lohariya Ram only and also prepared all the documents, but the Department was not prepared to get the agreement signed by it through firm M/s Lohariya Ram.

(3.) EVEN as per Annex. 1, in the case of default, if all the odds were to be held against the petitioner, the respondents could have forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner and not the whole of the amount, but in the present circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified to act in the manner, they had acted in not entering into agreement with the petitioner, neither there was any basis or legal ground for the respondents to have not entered into agreement with M/s Lohariya Ram when the bid itself was given in the name of `sarva Shri Lohariya Ram' and amount was also deposited in the name of `sarva Shri Lohariya Ram' which contemplates that the bid had been given by Lohariya Ram for himself and for others.