Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 14 (CHH)

Shiv Kumar Kaiwat v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-01-06

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, N.K.CHANDRAVANSHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. As agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 23.07.2021 was issued by the Collector (Mining Branch), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar for grant of lease for sand mining under the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Resources General Sand (Excavation and Trade) Rules, 2019, for short ‘2019 Rules’ in respect of groups, namely Bastar-H, Bastar-I, Bastar-J and Bastar-K. 4. In terms of the said NIT, date of submission of bid commenced from 23.08.2021 and the last date and time for submission of the same was 31.08.2021 at 4.00 P.M. 5. The writ petition is filed by 12 petitioners, essentially, with a grievance that they were illegally not allowed to submit their bids in respect of Basar-K, so that the mining lease could be offered to a blue-eyed boy of the authorities. 6. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belong to the District of Bilaspur and before the closing time, the Mining Inspector had closed the process of collection of bids, as a result of which they are gravely prejudiced. Being aggrieved, an application was filed before the Collector, Bastar seeking his intervention with regard to the arbitrary action of the Officer. Though a report was submitted, it is contended that no reliance can be placed on the report as the report was submitted by the very same officer against whom complaint was made. It is submitted that the bidders were called inside the office of the District Mining Officer, Bastar and their bids were accepted behind closed doors which is not a sound practice in the matter of distribution of state largess. It is also submitted that there were anti-social elements, who resorted to hooliganism and they, in collusion with the staff, prevented the petitioners from submitting their bids. He has further submitted that one of the tenderers had subsequently approached the bank to return back 13 Demand Drafts dated 31.08.2021, each amounting to Rs. It is also submitted that there were anti-social elements, who resorted to hooliganism and they, in collusion with the staff, prevented the petitioners from submitting their bids. He has further submitted that one of the tenderers had subsequently approached the bank to return back 13 Demand Drafts dated 31.08.2021, each amounting to Rs. 80,000/- which were to be submitted by way of security deposit along with the bid, to him. He submits that in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, NIT for Bastar-K is liable to be cancelled and a direction may be issued to issue a fresh NIT for settlement of Bastar-K. 7. By placing reliance on the affidavit filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the plea taken by the petitioners that they have been illegally and arbitrarily restrained from submitting their bids is a false plea as nobody was prevented from submitting the bids within the due time. 109 bids were received in respect of Bastar-K, out of which 20 bidders were from District of Bilaspur, to which the petitioners belong. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 4 as well as petitioner No. 7 had submitted their bids in respect of Bastar-I and such bids were submitted by them at 15.20 P.M. and 15.08 P.M. respectively, on 31.08.2021. It is submitted by him that the fact that one of the tenderers had requested, as submitted by Mr. Parganiha, for return of 13 Demand Drafts, would demonstrate that the petitioners are sponsored by one tenderer. He submits that the fact that 12 competing bidders have joined their hands together to file this application is also a pointer that all the 12 petitioners are not genuine bidders. It is also submitted that an inquiry was conducted on the basis of the representation received from the petitioners and in the inquiry, it is revealed that no bids of any of the tenderers were refused to be accepted before the closing time. 8. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, who had emerged as the L-1 bidder, endorses the submissions advanced by Mr. Gagan Tiwari and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. 8. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, who had emerged as the L-1 bidder, endorses the submissions advanced by Mr. Gagan Tiwari and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. The facts of the case are delineated from paragraphs No. 8.1 to 8.11 of the writ petition. In paragraphs No. 8.5 and 8.6, it is stated as follows: “8.5 That, the present petitioners after paying Rs. 10.000/- as challan along with a demand draft of Rs. 80,000/- and completing the Bid documents were present at the office of the District Mining Officer-In-Charge, Bastar, Chhattisgarh for submitting their bid documents. The petitioners had even been standing in the queue within the officer premises of the District Mining Officer In charge, Bastar where the bid documents were being submitted by the prospective bidders. A copy of the Challan of the present petitioners is being filed and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/2 (COLLY.) 8.6 That, after as the petitioners were waiting in the queue, at around 4:00 p.m. the Mining Inspector of the said office refused to take the Bid documents of the present petitioner's despite of the fact that they were very much present at the Door step of the officer and waiting for their turn to be called in to submit their bid documents. Every applicant/bidder was being called inside the office room of the DMO, Bastar after which their bids were being accepted behind closed doors.” 11. In the facts of the case, there is no averment that some anti-social elements were present and they had prevented the petitioners from submitting their bids, but a ground has been taken to that effect in Grounds No. 9.2 and 9.3. Grounds No. 9.2 and 9.3 read as follows: “9.2 Because, the petitioners have raised their grievance before the Collector that they had reached the office at 3.30 p.m. and were standing in the queue and at around 3.45 p.m. the official staff of the aforementioned office along with some local people had forcefully closed the door and disrupted the process of acceptance of bidding forms. 9.3 Because, till date the Collector had not taken any action and has also not allowed the petitioners to submit their tender forms despite of the hooliganism done by the unwanted and unscruprous elements who were favoured by the government officials.” 12. A perusal of paragraphs No. 8.5 and 8.6 would go to show that the petitioners were standing in a queue and at around 4.00 P.M. the Mining Inspector refused to take the bid documents though they were waiting for their turn to be called in. However, at paragraph No. 9.2, it is stated that at 3.45 P.M. the official staff along with some local people had forcefully closed the door and disrupted the process of acceptance of bid documents. In a matter of the present nature, it would be reasonable to expect that a clear and categorical stand is put forward. However, petitioners have taken an ambivalent stand, which raises a question about the genuineness of the plea taken by them. What is clear is that they had been waiting in the queue. From the complaint lodged before the Collector, it would appear that the petitioners had reached the office at 3.30 PM. It defies logic as to why 12 competing bidders would come together to submit their respective bids at the same time and therefore, the submission of Mr. Gagan Tiwari that all the bidders have been sponsored by one particular bidder, cannot be brushed aside, more so in view of the submission of Mr. Parganiha that one of the bidders had requested for return of demand draft deposit of Rs. 80,000/- each in respect of 13 bidders including the 12 petitioners. 13. Though some argument is advanced by Mr. Parganiha that no reliance can be placed on the report submitted pursuant to the inquiry conducted inasmuch as such report was given by the same officer against whom the allegations are made, such a contention is found to be without any merit. In the complaint, no allegation was made against any officer, but the allegation was made against the office staff and it is only in the writ petition, allegations are made at paragraph No. 8.5 against the District Mining Officer and at paragraph No. 8.6 against the Mining Inspector. Even in the writ petition, there is no clarity as to who was the officer who had allegedly refused to accept the bids. 14. Even in the writ petition, there is no clarity as to who was the officer who had allegedly refused to accept the bids. 14. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to invoke our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. All interlocutory applications stand disposed of.