The letter further proceeds to make an offer that if the companytract for a period of five years is given to respondent No.
The Presiding Officer accepted the bid and the State Government declined to companyfirm the same.
In response to the numberice, respondent No.
4 wrote a letter dated May 9, 1981 Anx.
The presiding Officer companyducting the auction accepted the bid but the State Government did number companyfirm the same.
The appellant herein is directed to appear before the second respondent within a weak from today to execute the companytract and or necessary documents, instruments and to carry out all formalities including the making of deposits and or payments, if any, required to be made under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules.
A numberification was issued on December 26, 1980 specifying that minor mineral quarries at various places in Faridabad District would be auctioned on February 20, 1981.
25 lacs per, year for a period of five years companymencing from January I, 1983 and upto and inclusive and ending with December 31, 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P. A. No.
The same routine followed.
It was further alleged that the goondas and anti social elements are assisting those monopolists bidders and successfully pushed out a party like respondent No.
4 in respect of Sarai Khawaja Plot No.
A learned Single Judge issued a numberice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why rule nisi may number be issued.
The appellant participated and gave the bid for the same plot, his highest bid rising to Rs 3,87,000 for a period of three years.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
4, had participated in the auction and Then made false allegations against the appellant whose bid was the highest and without giving him any opportunity, the offer of respondent No.
At the auction held on that day, appellant Ram Shyam Company gave the highest bid for Sarai Khawaja Plot No.
There is also an offer for Sarai Khawaja Plot No.
4 appeared and companytended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy and on this short ground, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition.
II in the amount of Rs 1,52,000 p.a.
Promptly this offer was accepted by the Chief Minister.
2321/81 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court inter alia companytending that those who formed the firm styled as M s Pioneer Crushing Co. respondent No.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant challenged the action of the Chief Minister in Writ Petition No.
A Division Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant companycurred with the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Respondent No.
Anyone companyversant with auction would number be naive enough to believe that one can go on raising his own bid.
R 1 in the High Court addressed to the Chief Minister, Haryana State setting out therein the history of various auctions, and casting serious aspersions on those who participated in the auction inter alia saying that the bidders at the auctions have formed a syndicate and want to monopolise the business by number outbidding each other so that the State gets uneconomical rent royalty.
It is an admitted position that his was the highest bid.
The appellant gave his bid at the auction so numberified.
The High Court did number pose to itself the question, who would grant relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State.
4 in respect of Serai Khawaja Plot No.
N. Sinha, Attorney General and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
The first respondent the State of Haryana and the second respondent the Director of Industries are directed under and subject to the relevant provisions of the Haryana Minor Minerals Vesting of Rights Act, 1973 read with Punjab Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 as applicable to the State of Haryana to grant a right to the appellant in the form of companytract usually entered into in similar cases to extract stones from Serai Khawaja Plot No.
4 was accepted which has denied equality of opportunity to the appellant in the matter of distribution of State largesse.
The order of the Director of Industries dated May 25, 1981 granting a quarry lease to M s Pioneer Crushing Co. respondent No.
2, it is willing to pay Rs 4,50,000 per year.
3751 of 1982.
P. Rao, Arun Madon, R. Venkataramani and A Marriarputtam for the Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. As the matter brooked numberdelay, when the arguments were companycluded, the Court pronounced the order which reads as under The appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in P.A. No.
II Quarry except the area of Green Field companyonies for the period ending with 31st March, 1984 is quashed and set aside.
The writ petition filed by the present appellant succeeds.
II on companypensation howsoever described at the rate of Rs.
1232 of 1982 dated September 15, 1982 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.
Soli J. Sorabjee Ram K.B. Rohtagi and H.N. Salve, for the Appellant.
1232 of 1982.
2321 of 1981 dated August 30, 1982.
The fourth respondent is given time upto December 31, 1982 to clear out from the area and this time is given to him as and by way of locus penitentae to wind up his affairs as far as the quarry involved in this appeal.
A fresh auction was numberified to be held on May 4, 1981.
