JAI NARAIN MODI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition claiming that in Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') there is a Chapter IV which deals with the Royalty Collection Contract or Excess Royalty Collection Contract. Rule 32 of this Rule provides that royalty collection contract may be given in respect of such area and such mineral as the Director may by a general or special order direct. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1986 inter alia gives a procedure for inviting tenders.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the powers conferred under Rules 32 and 35 of the Rules of 1986, respondent No. 3 invited tenders vide tender notice dated 4-6-2003 for the purposes of granting Excess Royalty Collection Contract on minor mineral 'marble' for the areas comprising in Tehsil Banswara. Gaddi of District Banswara and Tehsil Aaspur of Dungarpur. A copy of the tender notice is produced with the writ petition as Annexure 1. In this notice, the tenders were required to be submitted on 21-6-2003 in the office of the Additional Director Mines, Udaipur Zone, Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur and the office of the Directorate, Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur. The date advertised as 21-6-2003 was postponed to 27-6-2003 without assigning any reasons.

(3.) Petitioner purchased the tender form on 18-6-2003 on payment of prescribed fee, filled the tender form by offering Rs. 531 lacs per year as the contract price and also obtained the requisite Demand Drafts of different denominations totalling to Rs. 26 lacs. He affirmed on oath that he has submitted the tender in question and there were no outstanding dues against him or his family members. Petitioner when proceeded to submit the tender on 27-6-03 at about 10.30 a.m. at the Directorate Office, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur, an agitation was going on of the marble cutters of the area. The agitation was also at the office of the Additional Director right from the opening hours of the office. Tempers were running high and the agitators were raising slogans. The agitators were not permitting anybody to enter the office including the employees of the department. Petitioner also suffered at the hands of the agitators wherein, he was not permitted to go inside the office. The local administration utterly failed to provide any shelter and protection to those who wanted to submit their tenders. A chaos was created by surrounding the whole area and petitioner and other persons were prevented from entering the office under threat and were threatened to leave the area. The law and order was there, for casualty. Petitioner searched for a hide out but there stones were being thrown, therefore, petitioner had no option than to leave. Petitioner inquired as to what is the position at the office of the Additional Director, he learnt that the same situation is obtaining there also. He has relied on newspaper report in this regard.