JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner in this writ petition claims that under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1957') exercising powers under section 15 of the Act of 1957, the State Government has framed Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 5 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). Chapter IV of these Rules relates to the grant of royalty collection contract or excess royalty collection contract. Rule of the rules gives procedure for inviting tenders. 2. According to the petitioner respondent No. 2 exercising powers under Rules 32 & 35 invited tenders vide notice dated 4.6.03 for the purpose 10 of giving contract of excess royalty collection on excavating of marble at Rajsamand, Kumhalgarh, Ammet and Railmagra Tehsils of District Rajsamand. Tender notice also incorporated the collection of royalty at Gadi Tehsil of District Banswara and for Aaspur Tehsil of Dungarpur District. A copy of the tender notice has been filed along with the writ petition as Ex.1. The original 15 notice inviting tenders showed the last date as 21.6.2003 but the date was extended to 27.6.2003. 3. Petitioner purchased the tender form on 26.6.2003 so that he could submit the tender for Rajasmand area. Petitioner also purchased the demand draft of Rs.60 lakhs which was in favour of Mining Engineer, Rajsamand. A photo copy of the demand draft has been produced as Ex.2. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he went to submit his tender at about 2.00 p.m. in the Office of Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur but there he observed that an agitation launched by the marble cutters of that area was going on and as such, on account of the agitation and hurdle, he could not enter the office of the Director and could not submit his tender form. Petitioner was surrounded by the agitators outside the main building of the office of the Director and was not permitted to enter the office of the Director to submit his tender. News item pertaining to the agitation have been published in various newspapers and as such newspaper cutting has been filed with the writ petition. A copy thereof has been submitted as Ex.3. 5. Petitioner got released from the captivity of agitators at about 3.45 p.m. He immediately went to the Police Station, Bhopalpura for lodging a report but the police officers refused to do so. A copy thereof has been submitted as Ex.3. 5. Petitioner got released from the captivity of agitators at about 3.45 p.m. He immediately went to the Police Station, Bhopalpura for lodging a report but the police officers refused to do so. Petitioner's report was not accepted by the police authorities. Thus, he was left with no option but to send the report by a registered post. Petitioner has filed a copy of the report submitted to the police authorities on the same day i.e. on 27.6.03. Petitioner also made complaints to higher authorities including Chief Minister of the State, Minister for Mines and Geology and Director, Mines and Geology. 40 Copies of such complaints have also been filed with the petition as Ex.5. 6. The case of the petitioner is that until he filed report with the police 1 authorities, petitioner was not knowing as to whether others have been allowed to participate in the tender proceedings or not and what proceedings have taken place in the office of the respondent. Subsequently, he learnt that representative of M/s. Dev Ganga Enterprises i.e., respondent No. 5 went to the office of Director, Mines and Geology Department with the police assistance. It is also claimed by the petitioner that respondent went in the office of the Director in a police vehicle. Thus, there was only one tender, though subsequently, it came to the notice of the petitioner that other persons had filed tenders in the office of the Additional Director. According to 10 the petitioner, the tender submitted by M/s. Dev Ganga Enterprises was to me tune of Rs.36.52 crores in relation to Item No. 1 i.e. Rajsamand area. This was the only tender received in the office of the Director. 7. Petitioner has further stated that no tender form was purchased by M/s. Dev Ganga Enterprises and on 26.6.03 itself a partnership firm was 1is constituted and an application under section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 was ed before the Registrar of Firms on 26.6.03. The firm was registered on 27.6.03. It is submitted that none of these partners is the purchaser of the tender form. The tender form was purchased on 12.6.03. In such circumstances, it is claimed that the tender form submitted by respondent No. 5 was not purchased 20 by respondent No. 5 or its partners. Petitioner claims that the facts stated in the. It is submitted that none of these partners is the purchaser of the tender form. The tender form was purchased on 12.6.03. In such circumstances, it is claimed that the tender form submitted by respondent No. 5 was not purchased 20 by respondent No. 5 or its partners. Petitioner claims that the facts stated in the. petition shows that the petitioner was prevented from submitting his tender. It is claimed that had he been not restrained from submitting his tender, he would have submitted a tender of Rs.38,01,51,000/- in relation to Item No. 1 i.e., Rajsamand Area. it is submitted that if the officer given by the petitioner is not 25 considered, the petitioner as well as the State exchequer will be put to a severe less of 3 crores for two years. 8. Since, the respondents have failed to provide adequate security to the petitioner for submitting his tender, the petitioner was prevented from submitting his tender. The petitioner as immediately lodged the report but of consequence. Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid statement of facts s Submitted that on account of nuisance created by the alleged marble cutters c the area, petitioner has been deprived of submitting his tender. In these circumstances, petitioner ought to have been allowed to submit his tender subsequently. 9. Petitioner further submits that a tender is nothing but an offer and petitioner had already submitted a tender of Rs.38,01,51,000/- telegraphically which was more than the offer given by M/s. Dev Ganga Enterprises. In these circumstances, the offer given by the petitioner is the highest and the contract should have gone in his favour. The rules framed 40 with regard to the royalty are for the augmentation of the revenue of the Sate. It should not be subservient to the technicalities. There are circumstances where, after the expiry of the date, higher tenders have been permitted to be accepted. Refusal by the respondent State authorities is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts. 10. The claim of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 came into existence on 26/27.6.03, who never purchased the tender form. In such situation, the tender which was purchased by someone else could not have been used by respondent No. 5 and it is a clear proxy. 10. The claim of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 came into existence on 26/27.6.03, who never purchased the tender form. In such situation, the tender which was purchased by someone else could not have been used by respondent No. 5 and it is a clear proxy. In these circumstances, it has been claimed that respondent No. 5 may kindly be not granted the contract and petitioner's offer being the highest, should have been granted the contract. 11. Notices were issued to the State Government and the State has put in appearance and contested the claim of the petitioner. 12. State has claimed that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. Petitioner has only alleged that he was prevented from submitting his tender by the marble cutters and he made a report. This Court on the basis of the allegations levelled by the petitioner in another petition filed in relation to other contract, had ordered an inquiry under the supervision of Chief Secretary of the State. Chief Secretary has got the inquiry conducted by constituting an Inquiry Committee consisting of divisional Commissioner; Udaipur, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range: and financial Advisor of the Excise Department, Udaipur. 13. The said committee inquired into the matter and prepared an inquiry report on 6.7.03 which has been filed in the Court. According to this report, there was no such law and order problem which could prevent the petitioner from submitting his tender. The Inquiry Committee has opined that the allegations of the petitioner are an afterthought and are baseless. The Inquiry Committee has found no fault in the process of receiving tender. 14. The State has claimed that the petitioner has made reckless and baseless allegations. The allegations are unwarranted and unjustified. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The answering respondents have further claimed that there is one more important aspect of the matter which disentitle the petitioner from filing this writ petition that he has not filed any copy of the tender form, which according to him he wanted 25 to submit before the authority concerned. Thus, had he filed that tender form, his bona fides would have been established. 15. Thus, had he filed that tender form, his bona fides would have been established. 15. A copy of the draft which has been filed by the petitioner along with the petition has been purchased from Morena Branch of Union Bank of India by M/s. Singh Brothers. They themselves have moved an application before the Superintending Mining Engineer for supply of tender form. A copy of the application of M/s. Singh Brothers has been filed. Thus, the draft was purchased to be used by Singh Brother. Petitioner has filed another tender in relation to Banswara-Dungarpur wherein, on 11.3.03 he gave a bid of Rs. 6 crores. This was accepted and after acceptance, he withdrew from that process. A sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was got forfeited. This shows that his stand was not bona fide. State has strongly submitted that the claim of the answering respondents is sustainable in the background that the petitioner had defaulted in fulfilling the offer in relation to another tender. 16. The Answering respondents submitted that the tender form purchased by some one else, could have been used. There was only one condition that the tender form should have been issued by the office as notified in the notice inviting tenders. Therefore, the claim of the answering respondents that the tender cannot be said to be a valid tender, cannot be accepted. 17. The State has also relied on the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary. According to the report, Shri Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, ADM City, Udaipur was the Executive Magistrate and S.H.O. Bhopalpura, Udaipur Shri Ayyub Khan and Gopal Singh C.O. were present at the time of tender submission process in the office of the Director, Mines and Geology. On the basis of their statements, it is concluded in the report that during the process, there was never a situation where any person desirous of submitting his tender, was prevented. According to this report, the agitators were repelled around 2.00 p.m. and there was perfect peace and enough protection was available for those who were desirous submitting their tenders. 18. In fact, M/s. Singh Brothers had intended to file their tender. They did not submit and thus, the petitioner has used that draft. According to this report, the agitators were repelled around 2.00 p.m. and there was perfect peace and enough protection was available for those who were desirous submitting their tenders. 18. In fact, M/s. Singh Brothers had intended to file their tender. They did not submit and thus, the petitioner has used that draft. Further, the lowest 5 tender being of Rs.36.52 crores having been known to the petitioner, they had an after thought and raised their bid of Rs.38 crores & odd. Earlier, on 26.3.03 the highest bid was for Rs.48 crores offered by M/s. Pathik Hotels and Motels, Udaipur but desired amount was not deposited and, therefore, security amount was forfeited. On 20.5.2003, Shri Virender Singh gave a bid to of Rs.42 crores as amount of security which was also forfeited and ultimately, came the bid of Rs.36.52 crores which was accepted on 27.6.03. 19. It has been submitted in the report that tender forms were purchased by six persons namely, Shri Kalyan Singh Chouhan, Shri Onkarlal Joshi, Nathdwara, Shri Virendra Singh, Sikar; Shri Alok Aggarwal; Udaipur; 15 M/s. B.S. Associates and Shri Murari Lal Aggarwal. Although these tender forms were purchased by one man showing that there is a common interest of all of them. Virendra Singh who had once given a bid of Rs.42 crores gave he bid of Rs.21.51 crores which was in time. If Virendra Singh could submit his tender, why could the petitioner not submit his tender? It is In-understandable that Virendra Singh could easily get his Rs.60 lakhs Forfeited in a bid for Rs.42 crores. It is not a clear and fair stand being put by :he petitioner before this Court. A cartel has been formed and somehow they Nanted to frustrate the process. 20. Supporting their case on the basis of the pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was prevented from filing his under, though he was ready to fill in the tender of a higher amount which according to the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.38.51 lacs but due to the Nevailing circumstances on 27th June, at the office of Director Mines, Jdaipur, he could not do so and he sent telegraphic representation and give there representation also. The telegraphic representation was sent on that Jay itself. 21. The telegraphic representation was sent on that Jay itself. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasise that he has acted n fairness for the augmentation of the revenue of the State. The State should tot be permitted to suffer on account of some unforeseen exigency. There vas difficulty in filing tenders. The petitioner was prevented from submitting under, notwithstanding that he has quoted a higher price. 22. Withdrawal from another tender could not be such a contingency which could not be pressed against him because he has been penalised for He has suffered a loss of Rs. 5 lacs which has been forfeited by the State. "here fore, there cannot be any infirmity in the offer made by the petitioner as present tender is concerned. There is no law or condition in the tender hat any person who has already defaulted in any other tendering process, cannot be permitted to submit tender in other contract. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has filed report pursuant to the orders of this Court and in a document annexed with this report being document number Annexure-8 dated 27.6.2003, it has been specified that there was group of the people lathered at the office and they did not allow people for submitting their under. The letter so produced also signifies that the agitators have not allowed submission of tender form. This letter appears to have been written to 2.00 p.m. but there is overwriting and this could have been given at 2.30 p.m. This supports the plea of the petitioner. He is justified when he claims that he was not permitted to submit his tender. The, he made a reference to Annexure-10, which is a First Information Report which was given by a Police Official and in this report. it has been recorded that when the report was lodged and Police started its proceedings, it was 3.00 p.m. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-8 and Annexure-10 with the report establish the bona fides of the contention raised by the petitioner that he was prevented from submitting his tender. Learned counsel says that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition contemporaneous facts have been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-8 and Annexure-10 with the report establish the bona fides of the contention raised by the petitioner that he was prevented from submitting his tender. Learned counsel says that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition contemporaneous facts have been recorded. The petitioner claims that the documents produced along with the report submitted by the respondents, the stand of the petitioner has been established that he was prevented from submitting his tender. The conduct of the petitioner in withdrawing from another tender should not act as an impediment in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his offer which he has made by telegram and written submissions subsequent to the time of tendering. This is also emphasised that this withdrawing was a solitary example in the career of the petitioner wherein he has to use his discretion to withdraw. 25. In support of his submissions, learned counsel submits in writ petition the petitioner has relied upon the case of Excise Commissioner of U.P. & Ors. v. Manminder Singh etc. reported in AIR 1983 SC 1051 . This case relates to excise matter yet it has full force as far as the present controversy is concerned because its analogy has the same relevance. Relevant para relied by the learned counsel is reproduced hereunder: "In Civil Appeal No. 6228 of 1983 Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent, Amir Ahmen, submitted that in the case of the Bulandshahr District shops the Excise Commissioner had set aside the auction and ordered reaction on the basis of a petition from Shanti Kumar who claimed that he had been prevented from entering the auction hall and participating in the auction, an allegation which had been found to be false by the High Court as well as by the Excise Authorities themselves. We have considered this submission but we do not think that the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Excise Commissioner in the particular circumstance of the case and more particularly as the order of the Excise Commissioner had been made in the interest of securing the best revenue to the State. We have considered this submission but we do not think that the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Excise Commissioner in the particular circumstance of the case and more particularly as the order of the Excise Commissioner had been made in the interest of securing the best revenue to the State. In our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5997 of 1983 we have pointed out why it is not open to the High Court to issue straightway a mandamus directing the Excise Commissioner to accept the bid of the petitioner before the High Court. We also do not think that it was necessary for the High Court in this case to embark into a discussion of the evidence and to record a finding whether or not Shanti Kumar had been prevented from entering the action hall. The crux of the matter was that the Excise Commissioner came to the conclusion that the best possible revenue had not been secured by the auction, as was revealed from the circumstance that Shanti Kumar was prepared to offer a bid 40% higher than the highest bid at the auction already held. The Excise Commissioner was satisfied about bona fides of the offer of Shanti Kumar having regard to the deposit of Rs.9,65,000/- made by Shanti Kumar which he offered could be forfeited, if the re-auction did not secure bids at least 40% higher than the highest bid in the previous auction. Whether Shanti Kumar was really prevented from entering the auction hall or not, the Excise Commissioner was satisfied about the bona fides of the offer made by him and therefore, in the best interest of the revenue, he ordered a re-auction. Since the provisional acceptance of the Highest bid of the auction already held by the Collector was subject to confirmation by the Excise Commissioner. no vested right had accrued to anyone and if the 5 Excise Commissioner on a consideration of all the circumstances came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the revenue to order reauction, it was not for the High Court to interfere with the discretion of the Excise Commissioner in a proceeding u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. Dr. Dr. Singhvi also urged that on 24.8.1983 the Excise Commissioner had himself reported to the Government that the allegation of Shanti Kumar that he was prevented from entering the auction hall was false and that the bids secured at the auction were adequate. But when he so reported to the Government he did not have before him the deposit of Rs.9,65,000/- made by Shanti Kumar and the affidavit of Shanti Kumar containing the offer already mentioned. He received the affidavit and the Bank draft on 26th and it was thereafter that he decided to order re-auction. It may be that the Excise Commissioner is not bound to order re-auction every time he receives a better offer and the Court will not interfere if he refuses to entertain better offers after the auction is held. On the other hand, if he receives substantially better offers and so, in the interest of the revenue, he orders re-auction, then too the Court should not interfere. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following at least of the Court in the case Tata Celluler v. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 . 112. "In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499 at 515: 1994 AIR SCW 643 at p. 657 , this Court held thus: "......The Government had the right to either accept or reject the lowest offer but that of course, if done on a policy, should be on some rational and reasonable grounds. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., AIR 1975 SC 266 , this Court observed as under (para 17). "When the Government is trading with the public, the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions'. The activities of the Government that a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure." 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Article 51(a), an article out of the Chapter of Fundamental duties. He claims that the offer of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.41 crores would augment the State revenue by at least 10 crores. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Article 51(a), an article out of the Chapter of Fundamental duties. He claims that the offer of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.41 crores would augment the State revenue by at least 10 crores. If such an increase in the bid is not accepted by the State, then learned counsel submits that he is helpless in the given set of circumstances. This endeavour is made to bring the actual facts to the notice of the State Government and the Court. 28. In reply, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. R.L. Jangid submits that the demand draft Ex.2 was purchased from a place which is so outside the State of Rajasthan i.e. Murena (M.P.) on 26.6.2003. The tenders at Udaipur were on 27th June. Thus, this does not fit in the facts submitted by the petitioner. The draft has not been purchased by the petitioner but some other party i.e. M/s. Singh Brothers. This does not establish on record that this draft was ever endorsed to the petitioner. Without endorsement, a negotiable instrument cannot be used by any other person other than the purchase himself. The original draft was produced for perusal of this Court and it bears no endorsement so as to permit any person other than the purchaser to use it. It can be concluded that this has been negotiated. 29. It is curious to note that there was an application on the part of Singh Brothers of Murena that they themselves intended to fill in the tender form. This has been significant in the background that Singh Brothers themselves were the persons intended to fill in the tender form. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that a single draft can be used in two tenders. The cumulative effect of the facts submitted herein above shows that the petitioner never intended to fill in the teacher. He was only going to take a chance by making an offer without following procedure of law. Thus, claiming of privilege merely by raising the amount gives no edge to the petitioner. It is in this background that he has not lived up to his earlier stand. He was the higher tenderer in another tender and withdrew to fulfil his obligation. 30. Thus, claiming of privilege merely by raising the amount gives no edge to the petitioner. It is in this background that he has not lived up to his earlier stand. He was the higher tenderer in another tender and withdrew to fulfil his obligation. 30. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted in para 4 of his reply which is reproduced as under: That besides, one more important aspect with regard to the conduct of the petitioner needs to be mentioned for the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court. It is humbly submitted that there was one more matter of excess royalty collection contract for Banswara-Dungarpur for which tenders were invited and due date for opening the tenders was 11.3.2003. In pursuance of the said tender notification the petitioner himself gave his tender for Rs.6 crores and the petitioner being the highest tenderer, his tender was provisionally accepted and he was asked to deposit the security amount as per rules. But he did not turn-up to deposit the security money. It is significant to note that while submitting the said tender petition deposited the earnest money in the shape of a demand draft in the tune of Rs.5 lacs. But unfortunately even after the provisional acceptance of his tender being the highest tenderer, he did not turn-up and deposit the security money and in that situation the department was left with no alternative but to forfeit his earnest money of Rs.5 lacs and cancel his tender. This shows that he is not bona fide in his action in filing the present. This aspect can also be said to be more important which shows that usual and unjustified conduct of the petitioner. 31. Inherently, the conduct of the petitioner is such that no implicit reliance can be placed on an offer made by him, because in a contemporaneous process of accepting tender, the petitioner has backed-out after provisional acceptance. Thus, there is every hazard in accepting the offers made by the petitioner. The question, whether the petitioner was prevented from tendering has two fold dimensions, one is that this question requires investigation of facts, whether the petitioner was prevented or he is only making a tall claim. He claims that he was prevented from submitting his tender because of some disturbance. According to the learned counsel for the State, the disturbance was suitably controlled. 32. He claims that he was prevented from submitting his tender because of some disturbance. According to the learned counsel for the State, the disturbance was suitably controlled. 32. The second aspect of the matter is that on the basis of the allegation, an enquiry was ordered by this Court and according to the State, it has come in report that there were circumstances conducive to transact the ordinary business. 33. That being the position, the facts have been suitably answered by the State that there was no handicap in the way of the petitioner to submit his tender on the appointed day and time. The enquiry was conducted under the supervision of the Chief Executive of the State and highest ranking officers of the State in relation to that division. This enquiry report is a perfect report and there is no lacuna. There were two appointed places for submitting the tenders. The tenders were received at both the places so that there was proper arrangements to facilitate the tenders submitted by the persons. This providence of two places was in accordance with rules. The stand of the counsel for the State is that at the place where the petitioner to alleges the disturbance, there has been as many as tenders received. About the other place i.e. Directorate, there was no allegation of the petitioner that there was disturbance, where the tenders would be comfortably deposited in the box kept for depositing tenders. There is no claim on the part of the petitioner that any provision of the law governing the process of tendering, has been violated. 34. The letter of the Superintending Engineer relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Annexure-8. This speaks of only disturbance. it does not speak of anything which has the character of concluding that the disturbance was such that the petitioner could be 20 prevented from submitting his tender. Be that as it may, by 2.30 p.m., the entire situation was put under control and there was prefect peace available to transact the desired functions by the petitioner and he could have submitted his tender at 2.30 p.m. The Enquiry Committee has considered all the material including the tenders submitted by the petitioner. Coming to the conclusion that, there was conducive environment prevailing for submitting tenders. The offer of the petitioner which is placed on the higher site is merely an afterthought. Coming to the conclusion that, there was conducive environment prevailing for submitting tenders. The offer of the petitioner which is placed on the higher site is merely an afterthought. The writ petition of the petitioner is untenable and mala fide, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 35. Learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari has referred para 9 of page 7 of the report, which is reproduced as under: " 9- jktleUn {ks= ds bl Bsds ds fy;s fnukad 26-6-2003 dks ,d gh O;fDr }kjk fuEukafdr 6 O;fDr;ksa ds uke ls fufonk izi= v/kh{k.k [kfu vfHk;Urk] mn;iqj ds dk;kZy; ls tkjh djok;s x;s ftldh iqf"V v/kh{k.k [kfu vfHk;Urk }kjk la/kkfjr jftLV~j ds dze la[;k 18 yxk;r 23rd fd;s x;s vadu (Annexure 23) ls gksrh gS& 1- Jh dY;k.kflag pkSgku] 2- Jh vkSadkjyky tks'kh] ukFk}kjk 3- Jh fojsUnzflag] lhdj 4- Jh vkyksd vxzoky] mn;iqj 5- eSllZ ch0,l0 ,lksfl;sV~l 6- Jh eqjkjhyky vxzoky bl {ks= ds fy;s tks 6 fufonk,a izkIr gqbZ] muesa ls 2 fufonk,a mijksDr O;fDr;ksa esa ls Jh fojsUnz flag ,oa Jh eqjkjhyky vxzoky dh FkhaA bu nksuksa O;fDr;ksaa dh fufonk ds lkFk cdk;k ugha gksus dk tks 'kiFk&i= layXu Fkk] og Hkh blh O;fDr }kjk ftlus fufonk izi= tkjh djokus Fks] [kjhns x;s Fks (Annexure-24 & 25) A blls Li"V gS fd tks fufonk izi= tkjh djk;s x;s os ,d gh xzqi ds O;fDr;ksa }kjk vyx&vyx ukeksa ls [kjhns x;s ,oa buesa ls 2 fufonk,a Jh fojsUnz flag dk :i;k 28-51 djksM+ dh ,oa Jh eqjkjhyky vxzoky dh :i;k 28-50 djksM+ dh Mkyh xbZ tks mPpre fufonk ls dkQh de gSA fufonk,a [kqyus ds ckn tc bl xzqi ds O;fDr dks ;g irk pyk fd fdlh vU; O;fDr us vf/kd jkf'k dh fufonk Mky nh gS] rc ;g Bsdk vf/kd jkf'k dh fufonk okys O;fDr dks izkIr u gks tkos] ;g lkspdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk is'k dh xbZ izrhr gksrh gSA blds vykok mijksDr fooj.k ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ tks fd blh xzqi dk ,d lnL; gS mls ;g vPNh rjg ls ekywe Fkk fd fufonk,a nksuksa LFkkuksa ij Mkyh tk jgh gSa ,oa fufonk Mkyus esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ ck/kk ugha gSA " 36. Learned counsel for the answering respondent has drawn the attention of the Court towards page No. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 which show that the application has been moved in the name of different persons. However, it has been signed by one signatory, whose name cannot be made out from the signature. These applications appears to have been signed by one Mr. Prahlad Singh. So also the register shows that tender forms were purchased for all these persons by one signatory. Out of these tenders received, two tenders were submitted by Shri Virendra Singh and Shri M.L. Agarwal, who had purchased the tender forms through the person from whom Mr. Onkar Lal Joshi is alleged to have procured their form. 37. Learned counsel for the answering respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court that there was a design in obtaining so many forms arid quoting various amounts. The amount offered by Virendra Singh was Rs.28,51 crores and amount of M.L. Agarwal was Rs.28.50 crores which are 25 much less than the amount accepted. 38. Learned counsel for the answering respondent further pointed out that on 25th February, when the contract was earlier available for tendering, there was an amount quoted by Virendra Singh to the tune of Rs. 42 crores and this having been accepted. the said Virendra Singh failed to deposit the security amount and the security amount to the tune of Rs.60 lacs was forfeited. After that, the department was forced to re advertise the tender. The amount of Rs.60 lacs was forfeited after the acceptance of the bid of Virendra Singh. It naturally is a situation where the Department is being taken for a ride by a group of people by offering lower and higher amounts.This appears to be with a design for not giving stability to the process of tendering, which is sine qua non in the proper functioning of the State. Unless there is assurance reflected in the process, the public at large or those who could be interested individually in the process would never feel protected. Persons like the petitioner would always be there to torpedo the process. 39. Learned counsel for the answering respondent further submitted that there is a curious inclusion in the list of names at SI. No. 5 i.e. B.S. Associates who is the existing contractor of the contract. Persons like the petitioner would always be there to torpedo the process. 39. Learned counsel for the answering respondent further submitted that there is a curious inclusion in the list of names at SI. No. 5 i.e. B.S. Associates who is the existing contractor of the contract. B.S. Associates continued to operate the contract even after the process started. He could except that the process of fresh tenders gets frustrated. It is emphasised that by hook or by crook. B.S. Associates wanted to continue with the contract. Incidence of getting 60 lacks forfeited amount or filing of an injunction suit only indicate that the cartel formed by the group of people wanted to continue in the governing situation obtaining at the contract site. There has so been a positive recognition of the judicial Courts including the Apex Court of the sealed tender form. It is a universally recognised method accepted to secure right amount for the public exchequer. 40. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the answering respondent has relied upon a case reported in (1984) 1 SCC 270 . 41. Learned counsel for the answering respondent further relied upon a 5 case reported in AIR 1999 SC 393 . In that case, the figure of price quoted by tenderer however attractive should not be made the sole criteria for judging the validity or propriety of a tender in judging its suitability. What should also be looked into is the reputation, market condition of the person who has offered the tender, whether he is in a position to accomplish, what he has to offered. According to the learned counsel, no case has been made out by the petitioner for disturbing of concluded contract. The assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition are a mere camouflage and according to the learned counsel for the answering respondent, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 42. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present writ petition is a curious litigation where the petitioner has desired to perform an act which relates to the collection of royalty. The collection of royalty is collection of tax, a sovereign function of the State. State in its wisdom has chosen to abdicate the function of collection of tax to private individuals. The present writ petition is a curious litigation where the petitioner has desired to perform an act which relates to the collection of royalty. The collection of royalty is collection of tax, a sovereign function of the State. State in its wisdom has chosen to abdicate the function of collection of tax to private individuals. This is stated to have been done with an express objective of augmentation of State revenue. 43. The petitioner has in its petition raised a basic argument that he is desirous of adding to State revenue. As stated, it is in the background that the tenders which were invited could not be regulated in a fashion in which a lawful State function is required to be performed. Petitioner has claimed that there was a total chaos at the office of the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur because some marble cutters were agitating and also obstructing the way of those who were desirous of submitting their tender forms. Tender forms could also be submitted at the office of Additional Director, Mines and Geology Department also. 44. According to the petitioner, there was total lawlessness and there for, the petitioner was prevented from submitting his tender. At the in that stage, when another matter of petitioner was also taken up for commission, arguments of the petitioner were delineated in the order-sheet and inquiry was ordered. The order reads as under: "'Heard. The allegations of the petitioner are as under: 1. That the State authorities had failed to maintain law and order at the place where he was to submit his tenders. 2. That the State authorities had failed to provide protection to the petitioner for going to the office of Director, Mines. 3. That there was a notification by the State Government that the tenders can be filled upto 3.00 p.m. of 27.6.2003 but the State had neglected its obligation for providing fair opportunities which would have facilitated the petitioner to submit his tender. 4. That the petitioner had completed all the formalities of submitting his tender including one of purchasing draft from the Bank for denomination of Rs. 25 lakhs but he was encircled by the agitators who were agitating at the office of the Director, Mines and was not permitted to enter the office of the Director, Mines and submit his tender. 5. That the petitioner had completed all the formalities of submitting his tender including one of purchasing draft from the Bank for denomination of Rs. 25 lakhs but he was encircled by the agitators who were agitating at the office of the Director, Mines and was not permitted to enter the office of the Director, Mines and submit his tender. 5. That the FIR which he intended to lodge at the local police station was not registered and he was compelled to go to the office of Superintendent of Police. Resultantly, he submitted his FIR before the Superintendent of Police. 6. That the offer intended to be made by the petitioner is said to be of tune of Rs.4,06,00,000/- as compared to the offer made by the respondent No. 5 which is Rs.3,51,00,000/-. Petitioner's bid was more by Rs.1,10,00,000/- for the contract period. 7. That the present respondent No. 5 had earlier given a bid of over Rs.5,00,00,000/- but they have taken the advantage of the chaos and succeeded in giving the tender of Rs.3,51,00,000/- and thus, succeeded in duping the State for a sum which is not small. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that last year, the bid was of Rs.2,87,00,000/-. If negotiations are now made and respondent No. 6 is enhances his bid, he is prepared to suitably enhance the bid of Rs.4,06,00,000/-. The arguments referred to herein above as advanced by the petitioner, if true, speaks of carelessness and casualness of the State authorities in dealing with the matter where State Exchequer is involved. If the allegations of the petitioner is correct, then, the State has been put to a loss of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-. The tenders which were required to be invited on 10.4.2003, the State authorities waited upto the month of June, 2003. This again speaks of some kind of activity which requires investigation. If the State is put to loss, then, the State is required to investigate and look into the matter. Issue notice, returnable on 11.7.2003. Notices be given 'dasti'. Learned Additional Advocate General present in Court accepts notice on behalf of State. He is requested to apprise the Chief Secretary of the State to institute an inquiry committee under this supervision and inquire into the matter within a period of seven days as to whether the allegations of the petitioner are correct. Notices be given 'dasti'. Learned Additional Advocate General present in Court accepts notice on behalf of State. He is requested to apprise the Chief Secretary of the State to institute an inquiry committee under this supervision and inquire into the matter within a period of seven days as to whether the allegations of the petitioner are correct. If some officer is found responsible, then the responsibility should be fixed because the tenders which were required to be invited in April, 2003 have been sufficiently delayed and on the day, when there was a law and order problem, the tenders were taken and processed. Put up on 11.7.2003. A copy of this order along with copy of writ petition be placed before the Chief Secretary forthwith, for necessary action. Learned Additional Advocate General is requested for the purpose. A copy of this order be served on the Additional Advocate General." 45. Pursuant to the direction contained in the aforesaid order of the Court, an inquiry was got conducted by the Chief Secretary of the State and he has submitted the report with the following finding in the concluding para: " lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ fu;ekuqlkj Bsdk ysus ds izfr xaHkhj ugha gSA vxj og ;g Bsdk ysuk pkgrk rks izFke ckj vkeaf=r dh xbZ fufonk fnukad 11-3-2003 ,oa blds ckn fnukad 20-5-2003 dks Hkh mls fufonk Mkyus ds volj feys Fks] ml le; Hkh mlus Bsdk ysus dk iz;kl ugha fd;kA fnukad 27-6-2003 dks Hkh dkuwu ,oa 'kkafr O;oLFkk dh ,slh dksbZ ifjfLFkfr;kWa ugha Fkha] ftuds dkj.k ;g fufonk izLrqr ugha dj ldk gksA bl izdkj ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vkjksi after thoughts ,oa fujk/kkj izrhr gksrs gSaA bl iw.kZ izfdz;k esa fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh dk dksbZ nks"k lkeus ugha vk;k gSA " 46. The report was submitted to him by an Inquiry Committee consisted by him. The Inquiry Committee consisted of the following persons: (i) Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. (ii) Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range. (iii) Financial Adviser of the Excise Department, Udaipur. 47. According to the report submitted to this Court, it is claimed by the Sate that there was no law and order problem at the place where petitioner 10 could submit his tender as has been claimed by the petitioner. Of course, there was some disturbance but the same was skillfully handled. (iii) Financial Adviser of the Excise Department, Udaipur. 47. According to the report submitted to this Court, it is claimed by the Sate that there was no law and order problem at the place where petitioner 10 could submit his tender as has been claimed by the petitioner. Of course, there was some disturbance but the same was skillfully handled. if the findings of the Inquiry Committee are accepted, then the entire edit face on which the petitioner has tried to build up his case fails to ground. Before any comment is made on the report submitted by the State, the sequence of 15 e tents which had happened in relation to the tender in question are required to be examined. 48. For submitting a tender, tender forms were to be procured. Petitioner claims that he purchased a tender form. The claim of the petitioner regarding purchase of the tender form is born out from the inquiry report. Not only that the petitioner had purchased the form through one Prahlad Singh, but about five others had also purchased the tender forms. Thus, it is established that at least there was one thing Common in those persons/firms. They had appointed one person who purchased forms for submitting tenders for all of them. Out of these six persons, two persons namely, Virendra Singh and M.L. Aggarwal have succeeded in submitting their tenders. Their tenders were for the amount 01 Rs. 21.51 crores and Rs.21.50 crores respectively. Thus, one thing is clear that all those persons/firms who got forms purchased through Prahlad Singh were not that handicapped as has been claimed by the petitioner. Two of them were successful in submitting their tenders. This is a very prominent happening and poses a big question. If two of those six persons could do it, why the petitioner could not do it? It is a question which requires a deep study because filling of tender forms by the two of six who had purchased forms through Shri Prahlad Singh shows that there was an opportunity which could facilitate these two persons to submit their tenders. There is no whisper in the petitioner's case as to how these persons could accomplish their task in filling in their forms. Though the petitioner has taken core to mention that respondent No. 5 had gone in a police jeep. There is no whisper in the petitioner's case as to how these persons could accomplish their task in filling in their forms. Though the petitioner has taken core to mention that respondent No. 5 had gone in a police jeep. This establishes that the position of law and order was not as hopeless as has been projected by the petitioner. 49. The aforesaid facts have to be considered in the background that the present submission of tenders was not the first for this contract. On three earlier occasions, tenders were invited and submitted. On all the three occasions, highest tenderer backed out. The highest amount quoted so far 45 Yr. is Rs.48 crores. On account of the backing out of the highest bidder. there was no finalisation of the contract. There was another occasion within the three lapsed chances that a bid of Rs. 42 crores was also given by one of the six persons who purchased form through Prahlad Singh namely, Shri Virendra Singh. He also backed out and got his Rs.60 lacks forfeited. Thus, even at the loss of Rs.60 Lakhs, Virendra Singh being one of those six, had not gone for finalisation of his bid. 50. In the aforesaid background, it is to be examined that a bid of Rs.36.52 crores, which has been accepted by the State, in a proper exercise of discretion or not? The present petitioner had after the time of submitting the tenders has raised the bid of Rs.38 crores, about 1.5 crores more than 5 the amount of accepted bid. He has tried to raise his offer in Court of Rs.40 crores and then, to Rs.42 crores. The immediate reaction of the petitioner after having known, the bid of Rs.36.52 crores being accepted was to raise his offer to Rs.38 crores. Subsequently, the amount has been raised to Rs.40 and Rs.42 crores. 51. What could be a possible business figure, if conjectured from the amounts quoted in Court submissions and also in past? One of the tenderer namely, M/s. Pathik Hotels and Motels Udaipur quoting Rs.48 crores have not desired to take contract, even at the loss of security money. In another bidding Mr. Virendra Singh having quoted Rs.42 crores has not desired to take the contract for this figure and has got Rs.60 lakhs forfeited. One of the tenderer namely, M/s. Pathik Hotels and Motels Udaipur quoting Rs.48 crores have not desired to take contract, even at the loss of security money. In another bidding Mr. Virendra Singh having quoted Rs.42 crores has not desired to take the contract for this figure and has got Rs.60 lakhs forfeited. Thus, it can be deduced that the figures of 48 and 42 crores are not conducive to the business transactions. May be that these figures can be put up by some courageous entrepreneur but nonetheless, these figures have not been considered to be an attractive business transaction, when the going was smooth. Even at the toughest possible time, the petitioner has not raised the figure beyond Rs.38 crores. Thus, there can be seen a very large scope of manipulation in the figures. 52. The conduct of the petitioner is available for verification on record. He was a bidder in another tender floated by the State Government. He had backed out from that tender and got his security money forfeited. This incident may not by itself dis-entitle the petitioner to be competitor in another bid but then, at least it indicates that the petitioner is capable of quoting a higher amount and then giving it up even after suffering a loss. This shows the wagering attitude of the petitioner. The fact of abdication of the sovereign function of collection of State revenue in favour of emboldened persons like the petitioner gave opportunity to them to play.with the State machinery. This is consequence of the indifferent attitude of the officials who by their incapacity to functions properly have not permitted the State to get proper revenue collection. 53. It is one such incident wherein, the administrative slackness of the officers have given rise to the present litigation. The petitioner wants to make best cut of the situation. A group of persons having succeeded in frustrating the process of the award of the contract for three must give sufficient indication to the State officers to understand that they are being taken for a ride by that group of persons. May be that they have formed a cartel. By their money power, they want to have fun with the administration of the State. May be that they have formed a cartel. By their money power, they want to have fun with the administration of the State. Its weakness has come handy to them as they knew that had there been proper functioning of the State machinery, the State authorities would have never agreed to abdicate the power of revenue collection to private individuals. 54. The tender of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner exhibited that the petitioner was more than confident of his money power. By giving alluring figures i.e. Rs.38 crores at the initial stage and raising the same in the Court to Rs.40 crores and Rs.42 crores had a pre-determined so objective to attain. There appears to be a determination for de-stabilising the functioning of the State as delineated in the rules. Sealed tenders have been put into operation in the instant case. Method of sealed tenders is one of the methods provided by rules. It has sanctity which has been recognised by the 1 society and the Courts ever since it was put into use. Can a judicial Court exercising powers u/Art. 226 of Constitution of India to permit such a petitioner to have a field day for measuring the administrative health of the State? 55. It has been seen from the narration of the facts that the petitioner has tried to put into use a draft purchased by one Singh Brothers. This concern had the desire to bid for the contract. If not any other circumstance, including the purchase of about six forms by one individual, is not considered sufficient to indicate that, there is a formation of cartel by some lo individuals, then use of this draft can be viewed as a very strong circumstance to indicate that there is a group of individuals which would not spare any effort to de-stabilise the process initiated by the State machinery. This conclusion is supported by the fact that thrice the bid has filed because of the failure of the highest bidder to come forward to deposit the necessary 15 security amount. Thus, every time, when a genuine bid was there, an alluring figure was put forward as highest bid and bidding was frustrated. 56. In the accepted bid, the amount is of Rs. 36.52 crores. At that juncture, the petitioner had only quoted 38 crores which is not more than about 5% of the bid accepted. Thus, every time, when a genuine bid was there, an alluring figure was put forward as highest bid and bidding was frustrated. 56. In the accepted bid, the amount is of Rs. 36.52 crores. At that juncture, the petitioner had only quoted 38 crores which is not more than about 5% of the bid accepted. If the petitioner is permitted to have his day 20 and his offer is accepted, then the administrative changes will involve many adjustments and expenditures. The enhanced amount may not be sufficient to meet those charges. Thus, the increased figure offered by the petitioner at the earliest is not sufficient to persuade this Court to hold that the petitioner is in fact serious about the augmentation of the revenue of the State. He is more concerned about frustrating the State efforts. When the efforts of the State have been made to fail for three times, then fourth time also, an attempt is made to get the contract awarded by the intervention of the Court. Such a contingency will not do honours to the credit of the State. 57. Petitioner has sought to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India having a background wherein, he has backed out from another process of tender, having quoted the highest bid. May be one incident of backing out is not enough but coupled with other circumventing circumstances, it can be viewed as handicap for the petitioner to invoke powers u/Art. 226 of the Constitution c India. 58. In recent past, many such litigation have come to this Court wherein, such bidders have tried to invoke the powers of this Court to get the b d finalised. In most of such matter, State had agreed for bidding in Court or 40 had no serious objection. In the instant case, State has firmly takes a stand of at permitting such a course would not in any way serve the interest of justice. It appears that in case, every time the Court intervenes at the it stance of the such contractors, then there is every hazard to shake the orate of the administrative system of the State. 59. The sequence of events quoted herein above shows that under the camouflage of augmentation of the revenue of the State, the petitioner has t; ed to use the process of the Court to serve his business interest. 59. The sequence of events quoted herein above shows that under the camouflage of augmentation of the revenue of the State, the petitioner has t; ed to use the process of the Court to serve his business interest. This is considered that mere more money cannot be treated to be a driving force in the functioning of the State. There are no mala fides involved. so Manipulative figures can be seen coming to the fore on account of a presumed lawlessness. Petitioner has tried to show that he has been prevented from bidding. If the claim of the petitioner is judged in the background that two of the group of six who had purchased forms through one Shri Prahlad Singh have succeeded in submitting the tenders, the only inference which can be dawn is that every possible opportunity is considered by the petitioner for being magnified to serve his own business interests. 60. The attitude of the petitioner in quoting higher figures in the Court smacks of big brotherly attitude adopted by the petitioner, in the name of augmentation of revenue of the State. It can be seen that the petitioner is out to prove that the State authorities are not interested in enhancing the State revenue and he has more care of that. If this kind of attitude is permitted to prevail, it would certainly damage the confidence of the State functionaries. The process of diminishing the confidence of State officers cannot be permitted to trigger off. It has to be stopped from sliding further. This Court is feels that very fact of abdication of sovereign function of collection of tax in the hand of individuals has already done enough damage to the administration fiber. 61. What has been claimed by the State is that the entire State machinery was on job while the process of tendering was going on. There appears to be justification in his claim. Had there been a total misrule then, two persons out of the six individuals who had got the forms purchased through Prahlad Singh would have definitely not succeeded in submitting their forms. In this background doubting the claim of the State would not be correct. It can give a demoralising shock to the State administration. Had there been a total misrule then, two persons out of the six individuals who had got the forms purchased through Prahlad Singh would have definitely not succeeded in submitting their forms. In this background doubting the claim of the State would not be correct. It can give a demoralising shock to the State administration. The findings of the inquiry.thus, deserves to be accepted wherein, it has been claimed that there was enough opportunity available to the tenderers to submit their tenders. 62. When this Court comes to the conclusion that there was sufficient opportunity available to the petitioner to submit his tender, the claim of the petitioner thereafter, cannot be held to be justified. It cannot be said that the factor of augmentation of the State revenue has to be viewed only from the angle of the petitioner. The increased figures quoted by the petitioner does not appear to be real figures as many such figures floated in the earlier bids have fallen flat. 63. This writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. A word of caution is required to be sounded to the State authorities. It is not conducive to the good governance that the persons like the petitioner are permitted to make allegations like the one which have been made in the writ petition. Though this Court has not accepted that authenticity of the claim of the petitioner but then, the report itself is indicative of the fact that there was some unrest. When transactions are taking place where money is involved any kind of unrest would loom large on the head of those involved and may have daunting effect. Thus, having decided to abdicate the sovereign function of tax collection to private individuals, the State is required to act tough and see that at least the process of bid takes place in conducive and harmonious environment.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******