Shivam Mines and Minerals Through Its Proprietor v. State of Uttaraakhad

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA

W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ S) NO. 1 0 8 OF 2 0 2 1

1 1 TH NOVEMBER, 2 0 2 4

Shivam Mines and Minerals through its Proprietor Pradeep Aggarwal

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others

…… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : None present

Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State

: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

W I TH

W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ S) NO. 1 0 9 OF 2 0 2 1

Shivam Mines and Minerals

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others

…… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : None present

Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State

: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

JUDGMENT: ( per Hon 'ble Th e Act in g Ch ief Ju st ice Mr . Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

Since identical issue of fact and law is involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2) Writ petition (M/ S) No. 108 of 2021 shall be the leading case.

3) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs :

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders bearing Letter No. 641/ Khanan/ Nivida (Yamuna 21/ 1) dated

28.12.2020 (Annexure No. 1) and Letter No. 642/ Khanan/ Nivida (Yamuna 21/ 1) dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure No. 2), MOU dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure

No. 2-A) and work order bearing letter No. 782/ X/ IV-21/ 1 Yamuna (2020-25) dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure No. 2-B) and/ or all other consequential action / actions &/ or order / orders.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of first installment along with the security money payable with the first installment in accordance with procedure prescribed in the condition of process of payment in the tender document."

4)

In sum and substance, case of the petitioner is that he was found to be the highest bidder in a tender process initiated by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam for allotment of mining lots, and a Letter of Acceptance was also issued to him but, subsequently, the Letter of Acceptance was cancelled without any rhyme or reason, vide order dated 28.12.2020.

5)

Stand taken by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, however, is that in the Letter of Acceptance it was mentioned that petitioner has to deposit a certain amount as security upto a certain date. However, petitioner failed to deposit that amount within the time indicated in the Letter of Acceptance, and he could not deposit the security amount even during the extended time, then

ultimately, the Letter of Acceptance was cancelled vide order dated 28.12.2020. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, counsel for Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam submits that due to petitioner's inability to deposit the security amount, the mining lot was offered and allotted to the second highest bidder. He further submits that Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam has blacklisted the petitioner for non-payment of other mining dues vide order dated 06.06.2024, which has been challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition (M/ B) No. 176 of 2024, which is pending before this Court. He thus submits that for the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

6)

We find substance in the submission made by counsel for Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam.

7)

Since petitioner himself is to be blamed for not depositing the security amount with the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam within the deadline indicated in the Letter of Acceptance, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. More so, when there is a blacklisting order passed by the employer, therefore, unless that blacklisting order is set aside, this Court cannot direct Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam to award the mining lot to the petitioner.

A 2024:UHC:8364-DBe 8) In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. No orders as to cost. o o o ooooooooo oooo _________________________o o o o o o MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI , A.C.J.

___________________ VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. oooooo o

THDt: 11 NOVEMBER, 2024 Negi-e DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1NSH ef1dae20d13aaf116e73351 fdaf6878326386908a7f90d 5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FBU 7F4A80990FC51A722A6BC 552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2024.11.12 15:52:45 NEGI +05'30' 5e