IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12323 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Bachittar Singh. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of Auction Notice, Annexure P-1, dated 14.6.2010 for auction of ‘khads’ (sites) of minor minerals at various places. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is a Government contractor and proprietor of a Stone Crusher. He is eligible to participate in the auction proposed to be conducted tomorrow i.e. 16.7.2010 in pursuance of notice Annexure P-1, but the said notice contains unreasonable conditions prejudicing prospects of the petitioner to compete. 3. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are as under:- CWP No.12323 of 2010 i) Period of contract has been specified as one year where no environmental clearance is to be sought and where environmental clearance is required to be obtained, the period of contract will be upto 31.3.2013; ii) Auction is to be held by making groups districtwise; iii) Under Rule 10 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, priority is to be given in the manner mentioned therein without specifying any individuals; iv) As per condition No.7 of the Auction Notice, 1/3rd of the bid amount is to be paid as compensation to the land owner, panchayat or private person, in addition to auction bid amount without specifying the name of the owner. 4. We have considered the submissions made. We are unable to accept the same, so as to interfere with the proposed auction. 5. As regards the period of contract, the same cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary. Cases in which environmental clearance is required to be obtained stand on different footing and being a separate class, different period could be specified. The categories to which priority is given is as per rules, validity of which has not been questioned. Making groups districtwise is a 2 CWP No.12323 of 2010 policy matter. There is no ground to hold the same to be irrational or arbitrary. As regards not mentioning of names of the owner in the notice, it is mentioned in the notice itself that areas and Khasra numbers can be seen in the office of the General Manager-cum-Mine Officer of the concerned district. The said record will contain names of owners. 6. Manner of disposal of public property can be challenged only on the ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity affecting public interest or denying level playing field. Free play in joints has to be allowed in such matters. 7. In the present case, we are unable to hold that the conditions which have been challenged are irrational or arbitrary so as to call for interference. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 15, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3