Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 327 (JK)

Nazir Ahmad Lone v. State Of J&K

2013-05-22

Hasnain Massodi

body2013
1. Controversy in all the writ petitions on hand, (OWP No.445/2013, No.435/2013, No.366/2013, No.385/2013, No.427/2013), is identical and relates to allotment of "Royalty Collection Contract" by the Directorate of Geology and Mining for a period of six months (01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013) in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, 701, Pearl Business Tower, Netaji Subash Palace Delhi-110085 (respondent No.3) and Fayaz Ahmad Dar son of Ghulam Mohammad Dar resident of Magnipora, District Bandipora (respondent No.6 in OWP No.404/2013). 2. First an overview of background facts: 3. Directorate of Geology and Mining, J&K Government, in February 2012, floated tender notice, inviting offers from interested persons for award of "Royalty Collection Contract" in respect of 62 Minor Mineral Blocks (for brevity "MMBs") and 31 Stone Quarry Belts (for short "SQBs") of Kashmir Province, with effect from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 i.e. for Financial Year 2012-13. The Tender Notice gave details of terms and conditions to be satisfied by an aspirant for the contract and also quoted reserve bids in respect of each of the Mineral Block and Quarry Belts. The tender notice evoked some response and Royalty Collection Contracts were allotted in favour of such of the Contractors for 05 MMBs and 03 SQBs, who satisfied the terms and conditions set out in the tender notice and offered the highest bid. However, some of the Mineral Blocks and Quarry Belts did not evoke any response. The Department issued second tender notice on 9th March 2012 for 57 MMBs and 29 SQBs. Response again was very poor inasmuch as interest was shown only in respect of 07 MMBs & SQBs. This was followed by third tender notice dated 10th April 2012 for 50 MMBs and 20 SQBs. The third tender notice did not attract any offer. Resultantly, the Royalty Collection Contracts were not allotted in respect of such MMBs and SQBs. The Department in respect of such MMBs and SQBs, devised a mechanism of "Royalty Prepaid Booklet" to collect royalty on Minerals Blocks out of Quarries and other mining sites. Royalty collection in respect of such MMBs and SQBs, therefore, remained under departmental control. 4. Director, Geology and Mining, vide letter dated 25th September 2012, sought permission for extension of "Royalty Collection Contracts" in respect of such MMBS and SQBS that had attracted offers and were allotted in 2012 in favour of private person. Royalty collection in respect of such MMBs and SQBs, therefore, remained under departmental control. 4. Director, Geology and Mining, vide letter dated 25th September 2012, sought permission for extension of "Royalty Collection Contracts" in respect of such MMBS and SQBS that had attracted offers and were allotted in 2012 in favour of private person. The Directorate, as regards MMBs & SQBs that had not evoked any response and were under departmental control, vide letter dated 6th March 2013, sought permission to negotiate allotment of "Royalty Collection Contract" in favour of interested parties. It may be recalled that the "Royalty Collection Contracts" of these MMBs and SQBs had during the year 2012-2013, remained under the Departmental control. It was further proposed that revenue collected by the department during 2012-13 be permitted to be made baseline for such negotiations. The Administrative Department vide its No.IND/ MNG/2/2008 dated 26th March 2013, conveyed approval to negotiated allotment of MMBs and SQBs, royalty collection whereof remained under Departmental control during 2012-2013. The MMBs and SQBs were detailed in Column-G of Annexure 1 to 10 to the Directorate proposal dated 6th March 2013. 5. The Director, Geology and Mining, on receipt of approval from the Administrative Department, issued a notice styled as "Press Release" published in Local Daily Greater Kashmir in its issue dated 29th March 2013, informing general public that MMBs and SQBs of Jammu and Kashmir that had remained under Departmental control during financial year 2012-13 due to no response to the tenders floated, were to be given for Royalty Collection Contract, for the period with effect from 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 on proportionate reserved bid of the financial year 2012-13. The interested persons were informed to contact Directorate of Geology and Mining, 4th Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Udhyog Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu. 6. The Director, Geology & Mining, J&K Government, Jammu, on 29th March 2013, itself vide different orders allotted Royalty Collection Contracts for various MMBs and SQBs in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, 701, Pearl Business Tower, Netaji Subash Palace Delhi-110085. The allotment orders of MMBs and SQBS, to which they pertain and the consideration amount may be tabulated as under: Order No. In Respect of Consideration Amount (Negotiated) Consideration Amount (Deposited) Allotment in favour of 1537/MCC/DGMA/A LT/ 13/6377-83 Minor Mineral Block No. VI ( River Jhelum from Niana Bridge to Kadalabal) Rs.15. The allotment orders of MMBs and SQBS, to which they pertain and the consideration amount may be tabulated as under: Order No. In Respect of Consideration Amount (Negotiated) Consideration Amount (Deposited) Allotment in favour of 1537/MCC/DGMA/A LT/ 13/6377-83 Minor Mineral Block No. VI ( River Jhelum from Niana Bridge to Kadalabal) Rs.15. 75 lacs 7,87,500/- M/S Azam Mining Pvt. Ltd., 701, Pearl 1 Business Tower, Netaji Subash palace Delhi- 110085 1542/MCC/DGM/AL T/13/6384-90 Stone Quarry Belt Athwajan- A 15,825 lacs Rs.7,91,250/- -do- 1543/MCC/DGM/AL T/l 3/6303- 11 Stone Quarry Belt Athwajan-B 18.225 lacs Rs. 9,11,250/- -do- 1544/MCC/DGM/AL T/13/6398-6404 Stone Quarry Belt . Pantha Chowk 3 1.25 lacs Rs.15,62,500/- -do- 1540/MCC/DGM/AL T/l 3/63 12- 18 Stone Quarry Belt Wuyan Rs. 13.05 lacs. Rs. 6,52,500/- -do- 1541/MCC/DGM/ALT/l 3/64 19-25 Stone Quarry Belt Khrew Rs.7. 875lacs Rs. 3.93.750/- -do- 7. In case of MMB Nallah Madhumati Downstream, Madhumati Bridge, District Bandipora, the contract was allotted in favour of Fayaz Ahmad Dar son of Ghulam Mohammad Dar resident of Magnipora, District Bandipora vide Order No.1586/MCC/DGM/ ALT/13/675/57 dated 02.04.2013, for an amount of Rs.3.25 Lacs. 8. Petitioners question allotment orders dated 29th March 2013 and 2nd April 2013 made in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited and Fayaz Ahmad Dar, on the grounds set out in the petitions. The allotments are primarily questioned on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to compete for the contracts allotted in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, and Fayaz Ahmad Dar and not given an opportunity to participate in the negotiation/tendering process. It is pointed out that notice styled as "Press Release" was published on 29th March 2013 and the contract and allotment were made in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, on 29th March 2013 itself and in favour of Fayaz Ahmad Dar, two days after the notice was published in local daily. It is insisted that petitioners and all other aspirants for the contracts in question were kept at bay and denied opportunity to make their offers for various MMBs and SQBs, the "Royalty Collection Contracts" in respect whereof were allotted to two business concerns. It is stated that as per petitioners' information, M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, deposited 50% of the contract amount a day before the contract was formally allotted in its favour. It is stated that as per petitioners' information, M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, deposited 50% of the contract amount a day before the contract was formally allotted in its favour. It is pleaded that allotment orders impugned in the writ petitions, are arbitrary in character and violative of right to equality guaranteed under Article 14, Constitution of India. 9. The official respondents resist the writ petitions on the ground that negotiated allotment in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, and Fayaz Ahmad Dar, was made only after the three tender notices floated in March-April 2012, failed to evoke any response and the Department had to perforce devise "Royalty Prepaid Booklet" mechanism to collect royalty in respect of such MMBs and SQBs, and that the mechanism resulted in loss to public exchequer inasmuch as the licensees/leaseholders succeeded in avoiding payment of royalty on minor minerals dispatched from MMBs and SQBs. It is denied that allotments questioned in writ petitions involved any favouritism or were motivated by bias or mala fides. The respondents, to reinforce their stand, refer to the amount offered by the allottees (M/s Azam Mining Private Limited and Fayaz Ahmad Dar) and the amount collected during 2012-13, insisting that there has been manifold increase in revenue collection as compared to the revenue collected during the year 2012-13 by following mechanism of Royalty Prepaid, Booklet. 10. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for parties. 11. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, provides for development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. Section 4 prohibits reconnaissance prospecting licence or mining lease in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit/prospecting licence/mining lease, granted under the Act, and Rules made thereunder. Section 15 of the Act gives State Governments power to make rules, for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases and other concessions in respect of minor minerals and for matters connected therewith. 12. The State Government in exercise of the aforesaid power, has framed Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962, notified vide SRO 58 of 1962 dated 10th April 1962. The Rules of 1962 regulate grant of prospecting licence and mining lease in respect of land, in which minor minerals belong to Government. 12. The State Government in exercise of the aforesaid power, has framed Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962, notified vide SRO 58 of 1962 dated 10th April 1962. The Rules of 1962 regulate grant of prospecting licence and mining lease in respect of land, in which minor minerals belong to Government. In both the cases i.e. prospecting licence and mining lease, in addition to the surface rent, payable at prescribed rate, the lessee is to pay royalty on the minor minerals "despatched from the licensed/leased area" at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Rules. 13. The Royalty Collection Contract is a contract allotted in favour of a person authorising him to collect the royalty from the licensees/ lessees of MMBs and SQBs, in consideration of payment of an agreed amount by such person to the Government. The Royalty Collection Contract, therefore, is not to be confused with the prospecting licence or mining lease allotted to licensee/lessee, authorising him to undertake mining operations. Payment of royalty on the minerals dispatched from licensed/leased area in terms of Rule 22 read with Rule 41(l)(i) is a condition of prospecting licence/mining lease and saddles licensee/lessee with an obligation to pay it to the State Government directly or through a Royalty Collection Contractor. The issues relating to grant of prospecting licence/mining lease, therefore, have nothing to do with allotment of Royal Collection Contract. Royalty Collection Contract may be allotted to a person authorising him to receive royalty in respect of one or more than one MMBs or SQBs. The case law on the subject of grant of mining lease referred to by learned counsel for parties during course of argument, in the circumstances, is not relevant to present controversy. With this threshold clarification, let us go to the real controversy, emerging from the pleadings. 14. The ground urged in the writ petitions on hand, takes us to the extent of power of Government to award contracts, the principles regulating or restricting exercise of such power and lastly the scope and ambit of judicial review in such matters. 15. With this threshold clarification, let us go to the real controversy, emerging from the pleadings. 14. The ground urged in the writ petitions on hand, takes us to the extent of power of Government to award contracts, the principles regulating or restricting exercise of such power and lastly the scope and ambit of judicial review in such matters. 15. This Court had an opportunity to deliberate upon the scope of judicial review in commercial transactions entered into by the Government or its functionaries in M/s Ladakh Road Lines v. Food Corporation of India and others [ 2012 (4) JKJ 838 (HC)].The Court after making survey of case law on the subject, referring to law laid down by Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [1994 SCC (6) 651], observed: "...the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism; that while Court cannot interfere with Government's freedom of contract, invitation of the tender and refusal of any tender would pertain to policy matter, but whether the decision/action is vitiated by arbitrariness unfairness, illegality, irrationality or `Wednesbury unreasonableness' i.e. when decision is such as no reasonable person on proper application of mind could take or procedural impropriety, can be looked into by Court.............. the judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but decision making process itself; that the Court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision taken by a Government body as Court is hardly equipped to do so. However, the Court would interfere where selection or rejection is arbitrary or against the mandate of Article 14, Constitution of India. 16. It would be advantageous to refer to the following observations of Supreme Court in Tejas Constructions & International Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Sendwa & another [2012 SCC(3) 376]: "...a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : `the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.' ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226." 17. After summarising principles emerging from the case law that must govern exercise of power of judicial review in government contract matters, let us revisit the facts. 18. Royalty Collection Contract, in the context of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and J&K Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962, is directly linked with exploitation of natural resources. The amount offered by an aspirant for Royalty Collection Contract, would depend upon the quantity of the minor minerals extracted and despatched from the licensed/leased area. It is pertinent to point out that in terms of Rule 4(1) Second Proviso of Rules of 1962, the amount of royalty collected depends upon the value of minor mineral extracted, at the pit's mouth i.e. mining site. Natural resources including minor minerals are national assets owned by the people at large through State. Though people delegate their power to regulate exploitation of natural resources, like major and minor minerals, to the State, yet they retain interest in sustainable exploitation of such resources. They are keen that the exploited resources yield adequate income commensurate with their value, to the State Exchequer. The revenue generated by exploiting national assets, like major and minor minerals, is ultimately used for public welfare. This again generates a "public interest" in allotment of contracts connected with exploitation of natural resources. It is, therefore, in everybody's interest that the Royalty Collection Contract is not allotted in unfair and arbitrary manner. The arbitrariness in allotment of such a contract is bound to exclude genuine aspirant from competition and in turn deprive State Exchequer from the revenue it would have received had the competition been fair, transparent and open. So viewed, there is an element of "public interest" in allotment of contracts by the Government. 19. This is one aspect of the matter. The other and more important aspect relates to distribution of public largesse. The contract allotted by the contract allotting authority is in the nature of public largesse. So viewed, there is an element of "public interest" in allotment of contracts by the Government. 19. This is one aspect of the matter. The other and more important aspect relates to distribution of public largesse. The contract allotted by the contract allotting authority is in the nature of public largesse. The allottee of the contract is benefited by the contract and the benefit cannot be extended selectively at the whim and caprice of contract allotting authority. Selective allotment of contract at the unguided and absolute choice of the executive shall infringe right to equality of person/persons eligible for the allotment of contract but arbitrarily excluded and would therefore, be violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, Constitution of India. The Constitutional guarantee makes it imperative that everyone satisfying the conditions for participation in an auction or tendering process for allotment of Government contract, is allowed to participate in such process and considered for allotment of contract. Any effort to restrict consideration in an arbitrary and capricious manner would be in conflict with the mandate of Article 14, Constitution of India inasmuch as it will amount to treating equals as unequals. 20. The allotment of a Government contract in a whimsical and arbitrary manner without affording an opportunity to all eligible contractors to compete in the auction/tendering process would be open to judicial review inasmuch as the question before the Court would not be the decision taken by the executive but the decision making process. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that the Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot review an executive decision inasmuch as matter falls within realm of executive power. However, the court in no circumstances would feel dissuaded from review of the decision making process and setting it aside, where it suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality and perversity. 21. Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others [ (2012) 3 SCC (1 )], dealing with question of distribution of natural resources has held: "Natural resources belong to the people but the State legally owns them on behalf of its people and from that point of view natural resources are considered as national assets, more so because the State benefits immensely from their value. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, \ while distributing natural resources, the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best sub-serve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State legislatures deal with specific natural resources, i.e., Forest, Air, Water, Costal Zones, etc." 22. The Court proceeded to observe: "As natural resources are public goods, the doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concepts of justice and fairness, must guide the State in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. In this regard, the doctrine of equality has two aspects: first, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-a-vis its people and demands that the people be granted equitable access to natural resources and/or its products and that they are adequately compensated for the transfer of the resource to the private domain; and second, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-a-vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the procedure adopted for distribution is just, non-arbitrary and transparent and that it does not discriminate between similarly placed private parties. The State is the legal owner of the natural resources as a trustee of the people and although it is empowered, to distribute the same, the process of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles including the doctrine of equality and larger public good." 23. Though issue involved in the petitions on hand does not directly involve question of distribution of natural resources, yet it is indirectly linked with the question as issue raised is one of revenue generated by exploitation of natural resources. Though issue involved in the petitions on hand does not directly involve question of distribution of natural resources, yet it is indirectly linked with the question as issue raised is one of revenue generated by exploitation of natural resources. The public at large has a vital interest in income generated by exploitation of minor minerals and expect the revenue generated to reasonably reflect or have some kind of nexus with the value of minor minerals exploited/ extracted. The State exchequer can be benefited only in case everyone satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria, is given an opportunity to compete for "Royalty Collection Contract" so that the highest offer is accepted and the State is in a position to collect the maximum revenue from exploitation of precious natural resources. 24. In the present case, mode and manner of allotment of Royalty Collection Contract in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, and Fayaz Ahmad Dar (private respondents) does not satisfy minimum requirements of fairness and transparency, is tainted with vice of arbitrariness and cannot stand legal scrutiny. In case respondents were not happy with the "Royalty Prepaid Booklet" mechanism and were convinced that MMBs and SQBs under departmental control would generate more revenue for the State exchequer plug pilferage in the event these, like other MMBs and SQBs were allotted to private actors, least that was expected of them, was to give their intention/proposal wide publicity so that all eligible to participate in the auction/tendering process, would have an opportunity to come forward and compete for the contract. This would have given respondents opportunity to accept the highest offer, and ensure that State interests were not in any manner prejudiced. This, however, was not done as the facts and events delineated in the pleadings would reveal. 25. It is pertinent to point out that even Chapter V of J&K Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962, provides for public auction or inviting tenders as the modes of grant of mining lease and Royalty Collection Contracts. Though Rules 51 to 55 do not refer to Royalty Collection Contracts, but the title of the Chapter-V would indicate that public auction, is the first prescribed mode of allotment of Royalty Collection Contracts followed by "inviting tenders" from all the aspirants for the contracts. 26. The Director, Geology and Mining, received approval for his proposal for negotiated allotments on 26th March 2013. 26. The Director, Geology and Mining, received approval for his proposal for negotiated allotments on 26th March 2013. The approval prompted him to issue "Press Release" published in local daily in its issue dated 29th March 2013. The Press Release reads as under: "Press Release The Minor Mineral Blocks and Stone Quarry Belts of Jammu & Kashmir Mate which remained under Department Control during the Financial Year 2012-13 due to no response in the Tendering process are to be given for Royalty Collection Contract for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 on proportionate reserve bid and above of Financial Year, 2012-13. Interested persons may contact Directorate of Geology & Mining, 4th Floor Jawahar Lal Nehru Udhyog Bhawan, Rail Mead [Head] Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu." 27. The "Press Release" obviously did not conform to the requirements of standard tender notice. It in a casual and cursory manner informed general public that the Department proposed to negotiate allotment of Royalty Collection Contract and informed interested persons/parties to approach the Directorate of Geology & Mining at 4th Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Udyog Bhawan, Rail Head, Panama Chowk, Jammu. The "Press Release" referred to proportionate reserve bid of the Financial Year 2012-13. It, however, did not give details of MMBs and SQBs of Jammu and Kashmir, like location of the blocks/belts, proportionate reserve bid of the financial year 2012-13 in respect of each of such blocks/sites, so as to enable an aspirant interested in negotiated allotment to take an informed decision in the matter and negotiate for allotment of Royalty Collection Contract in his favour. 28. What is more surprising, nay intriguing, is that "Press Release" was published on 29th March 2013 and allotment was made to M/s Azam Mining Private Limited on 29th March 2013 itself. Where was the time for negotiations. The Department, obviously, did not intend to use negotiations as a meaningful tool to safeguard public interest but decided to reduce negotiations to an empty and idle formality. The device of negotiated allotment implies multilateral activity, involving more than one actors. In case respondents intended to enter into meaningful and result oriented negotiations, they were expected to hold such negotiations with more than one aspirants, so that highest price, that Royalty Collection Contract would fetch, would emerge and the contract allotted, accordingly. The device of negotiated allotment implies multilateral activity, involving more than one actors. In case respondents intended to enter into meaningful and result oriented negotiations, they were expected to hold such negotiations with more than one aspirants, so that highest price, that Royalty Collection Contract would fetch, would emerge and the contract allotted, accordingly. In the present case, the "Press Release" was so tailored and its timing was so fast that one would arrive at the irresistible conclusion that it was meaningless and a mere eyewash. "Press Release" is so cryptic that it does not even inform the potential competitors, the time from within which the Directorate was to be approached. It is pertinent to point out that "Press Release" was addressed to the general public in all the three regions of the State. It was not realised that it would be not only difficult but impossible for all those, interested in Royalty Collection Contracts, to respond to the Press Release. It would be appropriate to compare the "Press Release" dated 29.03.2013 with the Tender Notice issued in February 2012, on the same subject to find out intention of official respondents and information they intended to convey to general public. 29. The tender notice appended as Annexure E to the petition reads as under: "Notice inviting Tenders For and on behalf of Governor of J&K, sealed tender affixed with Revenue Stamp of Rs.10/-are invited as per the terms and conditions detailed separately from interested persons on prescribed FORMAT for award of Royalty collection Contract w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (for the financial year 2012-13) i.r.o. of Stone Quarry Belts detailed below excluding works of National Highway I-A, Railway works, PMGSY, BEACON, NHPC, HCC, JKSPDC and Mugal Road, The 3rd party objection if any shall be made within 10 days from the date of issue of this Notice in the local dailies. The tender documents can be obtained from the office of the officer incharge Mineral Section Kashmir, Geology and Mining Department, Basara Trust Building, Mehjoor Nagar, Srinagar, upto 22.02.2012, against the cash payment of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand only) per document and same shall be received in the said office by or before 27.02.2012 upto 12.30 pm and shall be opened by the committee nominated by Director, Geology and Mining department, the cover "A" (technical bid) on 27.02.2012 at 1.30 pm and the cover "B" (Financial Bid) on 29.02.2011. Stone Quarry Belts for which tenders are invited S. No District Stone Quarry Belt Reserved Bid (Rs. in Lacs) 1. Anantnag Shipora & Donipow and Brakpora 30.00 2. -do- Achabal & Kokernag 2.10 3. -do- Duroo, Panzath & Chakpat 2.00 4. -do- Lower Monda 8.00 5. -do- Tehsil Pahalgam & Bijbehara 3.00 6. Pulwama Bhu, Lathpora, Sambora 8.00 7. -do- Wuyan 25.00 8. -do- Khrew 15.00 9. -do- Mandakpal, Ladoo 20.00 10. Baramulla Shiva 6.15 11. -do- Zainapora to Tujar Sharief 4.10 12. -do- Harwan 2.50 13. -do- Bomai 2.10 14. -do- Drangbal 10.50 15. -do- Khanpora 2.50 16. -do- Veerwan 10.30 17. -do- Gulistan 1.50 18. Kupwara Khazan Mitti (Kralpora) 4.15 19. -do- Gagloosa Shumnag 4.00 20. Bandipora Saderkot Bala 11.50 21. Srinagar Athwajan "A" 30.00 22. -do- Athwajan "B" 36.00 23. -do- Panthwachowk 60.00 24. -do- BSF, Daketeng & Zewan 19.00 25. -do- Khunmoh (Excluding Guyyal, Hardalow) 25.50 26. Budgam Beerwa 10.00 27. -do- Karlnew 1.00 28. Ganderbal Yangoora 9.00 29. -do- Safapora (Exclusing Gratbal) 18.00 30. Kargil Minjee Area 2.50 31. Leh Leh Area 4.75 Press Release The Minor Mineral Blocks and Stone Quarry Belts of Jammu & Kashmir Mate which remained under Department Control during the Financial Year 2012-13 due to no response in the Tendering process are to be for Royalty Collection Contract for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 on proportionate reserve bid and above of Financial Year, 2012-13. Interested persons may contact Directorate of Geology & Mining, 4th Floor Jawahar Lal Nehru Udhyog Bhawan, Rail Mead [Head] Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu." 30. Comparative reading of two documents would reveal that the "Press Release" dated 29.03.2013, that according to learned counsel for respondents, sufficiently conveyed the intention to negotiate rates for allotment of Royalty Collection Contract and give sufficient information to the aspirants for contracts does not anywhere match in its contents of the tender notice of 2012. 31. The Directorate of Geology & Mining, in effect, had taken a decision to allot the "Royalty Collection Contract" in respect of various MMBs and SQBs before the press release was made public and the "Press Release" was, therefore, not a genuine effort to throw open the contracts to all eligible competitors. 32. 31. The Directorate of Geology & Mining, in effect, had taken a decision to allot the "Royalty Collection Contract" in respect of various MMBs and SQBs before the press release was made public and the "Press Release" was, therefore, not a genuine effort to throw open the contracts to all eligible competitors. 32. Looking from any angle and having regard to principles that must guide the Court while exercising the power of judicial review detailed in para 15 (supra), the allotment orders No. 1537/MCC/DGMA/ALT/13/6377-83; No. 1540/MCC/DGMA/ALT/13/6312-18; No.1541/MCC/ DGMA/ ALT/13/6419-25; No.1542/ MCC/DGMA/ALT/13/6384-90; No. 1543/ MCC/ DGMA/ ALT/13/ 6305-11; No.1544/ MCC/DGMA/ ALT/13/6398-6404, all dated 29.03.3013 and Order No. 1586/MCC/DGMA/AL T/l3/6751-57 dated 02.04.2013 issued in favour of M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, and Fayaz Ahmad Dar are arbitrary in character and made in gross violation of Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14, Constitution of India. 33. For the reasons discussed, the writ petitions are allowed and allotment order No.1537/MCC/DGMA/ ALT/13/6377-83; No. 1540/ MCC/ DGMA/ ALT/ 13/ 6312-18; No.1541/MCC/ DGMA/ ALT/ 13/ 6419-25; No. 1542/MCC/ DGMA/ALT/13/6384-90; No. 1543/ MCC/DGMA/ALT/13/6305-11; No.1544/ MCC/DGMA/ ALT/13/6398-6404, all dated 29.03.3013 and Order No.1586/ MCC/ DGMA/ ALT/ 13/ 6751-57 dated 02.04.2013, set-aside. The respondents, unless they decide to retain departmental control over Royalty Collection Contract in respect of MMBs and SQBs in question, shall auction the contracts in terms of Chapter V of the J&K Mineral Concessions Rules, 1962, after due notice or in alternative issue a Tender Notice giving all the requisite details so that petitioners and all other aspirants eligible in terms of tender notice, have an opportunity to compete for the contracts in question. The respondents may very well treat the amount, negotiated and settled with M/s Azam Mining Private Limited, and Fayaz Ahmad Dar (private respondents) as baseline or reserved bid, so that State exchequer is not exposed to any loss. 34. Disposed of.