JETHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Jetha Ram S/o Dudharam, an Ex-Sarpanch and Social Worker of Village Sada, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer. The petitioner also carries on the business of supply of building materials including "Bajri", a minor mineral, in the name of his proprietorship firm M/s. Baba Ramdeo Construction and Supplier. By filing the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter-alia, has challenged the order Annex. 4 dated 19.3.2013 issued by the Director, Mines Department, Udaipur giving the contract of collection of excess royalty and permit fees to the private respondent No. 5-M/s. Ridhee Sidhee Associates, on his highest bid of Rs. 7.37 crores for payment of excess royalty and permit fees for the "Bajri" to be excavated and lifted from the Tehsil(s), Gudamalani and Sindhari in District Barmer from all rivers and nala/s in the said area for the period 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2015.

(2.) The notice inviting tender (NIT) for the said contract was initially issued by the Mining Department vide Annex. 1 NIT No. 7/12-13 dated 30.1.2013 and upon modification thereof vide Annex. 2 NIT dated 22.2.2013, in Column No. 5 of the said NIT, the reserve price for payment in the form of contribution in the Environment Management Fund (EMF, fort short) imposed by the State by amendment of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (MMCR), the said Reserve Price was added to the originally fixed reserved price in Column No. 4; and thus the reserve price of such excess royalty and permit fees for the said area was fixed at Item No. 21 of both the NIT(s). The respondent No. 5 M/s. Ridhee Sidhee Associates, being the only and highest bidder for the said bid, was thus awarded the contract for the said area vide Annex. 4 dated 19.3.2013, which has been assailed by the present petitioner, Jetha Ram.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Mehta, on the question of locus-standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition challenging the award of contract in favour of respondent No. 5, submitted that since the petitioner is a businessman also besides being a public man being an Ex-Sarpanch and Social Worker, would ultimately bear the brunt and suffer the said levy of Environment Management Fund (EMF) contribution, besides the excess royalty and permit fees, which is being paid by him to the contractor while taking out the "Bajri" from the said area; and therefore, he has a cause of action in the matter and is assailing the said award of contract in favour of respondent No. 5 including therein the contribution to the Environment Management Fund (EMF), which has been constituted under Rule 37(T) and 37 (U) of the MMCR, 1986, which has been reproduced in the writ petition.