CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 22, 2009 Hakam Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are owning crusher units and are land owners also in District Panchkula. They have made a grievance against the auction notice issued by the State of Haryana (Annexure P-2) dated 10.3.2008. Fifty five minor mineral quarries situated in the District of Panchkula are to be auctioned for a period of one year. By virtue of condition No.13, the mining is restricted to the area of 5 hectares for the purpose of giving bid. Reserve price has also been indicated. Grievance is that reserve price does not take into account CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: the fact that area available for mining shall only be upto 5 hectares. In comparison, it is submitted that another auction in the same area is for 5 years, which does not carry any such restriction of mining upto 5 hectares, is also to be conducted where 55 quarries have been divided into 10 zones and the reserve price has been fixed zone-wise. It is then pleaded that the reserve price in both the auctions is almost same and on this ground, it is pleaded that this action is arbitrary. Strangely, it is prayed that auction notice Annexure P-2 deserves to be re-issued after modification so as to incorporate following features:- “a. To ensure compensation to all the land owners whose land is to be auctioned for quarrying. b. To ensure fixation of rational reserve price proportionate to the area to be utilized for mining. c. To ensure availability of raw material for the crushing units throughout the year so that these are not closed for want of raw material.” Notice of motion in this case was issued and operation of notification, Annexure P-1, is stayed. Reply is filed on behalf of the State, to which even a replication has also been filed. It is disclosed that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are land owners whereas petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are crusher owners. Petitioner No.6 is the existing contractor for miner mineral quarries falling in 14 villages of District Panchkula. Their basic grievance is that the reserve price fixed is very high, when compared to the quarries of the villages which are to be auctioned for five years. It is stated that the writ petition is filed with malafide intention to fulfill some ulterior motive. Reference is also CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: made to some earlier writ petitions filed, challenging the conditions imposed by the State Government in the auction notice dated 4.10.2007. Another Civil Writ Petition No.16115 of 2007 also came up for hearing on 25.3.2008 before Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of in view of the fact that the State Government has notified the auction for granting fresh contracts. Having said so, it is stated that the petitioners are raising uncalled for dispute by filing one petition after another with an intention to browbeat the prospective bidders to participate in the auction, which was to be held. Justifying their action, the reply also discloses that the State Government has decided that during the period of one year, individual quarry be given to the contractors individually subject to the condition that the contractor shall select an area of less than 5 hectares for carrying out mining operations. For period of one year, the quarries in individual villages can be operated in the selected area. This is to ensure that the building material for the development activities could be meted out and the raw material for the stone crushers may also be available and the State revenue is safe guarded. Obviously, this policy is to ensure that the interest of general public is protected and the legal requirements are also kept in view. It is justifiably contended that auctioning of mining minerals as per the policy by fixing the reserve price is a policy matter and the State, being owner of the mineral, has a right to choose the best method in over all interest of the State. Reference is also made to an observation made by this Court while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.14207 of 2000, the operative part of which is as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: under:- “State is the owner. It had a right to choose the best method by which it can collect the highest amount of revenue. Basically the case involves the question of policy when the State is decided to auction all the quarries together, it has not been shown that it had violated any Rule of laws. In this situation, no ground for interference is made out.” The main prayer made in the petition is already noticed above. Reading the prayer made in the petition, it is noticed that the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for modification of the auction conditions contained in Annexure P-2. Grievance is that they are unreasonable, irrational and violative of the rights of the land owners. Grievance also is made in regard to fixing the reserve price quarry-wise, which is stated to be not in consonance and compatible with the area offered for mining. Writ of mandamus is also sought for directing the respondents to re-schedule the auction and to re-fix the reserved price. Another Civil Writ Petition No.11221 of 2007 (Supreme Stone Crasher Gramodhyog Samiti Vs. The State of Haryana and others), came up for hearing before this Court making somewhat similar prayers. The prayer in this writ petition was to club the zones together and to hold one joint auction. Prayer was also made for re-fixing the reserve price as the one fixed was very excessive. Similar prayer had earlier been disposed of in another writ petition filed before this Court, which was noticed while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.11221 of 2007. The observations of the court CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: were noticed which were clearly to the effect that it was for the State to fix the reserve price and the petitioners can not insist that the particular amount be fixed as a reserved price. While going into the scope of writ of mandamus, the Court observed as under while dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.11221 of 2007:- “How these prayers would fall within the purview of mandamus is not made out. How auction is to be held, what should be the reserve price of such auction would be for the respondent Government to decide. Generally mandamus will not issue against an order refusing to grant a licence or leasee. Mandamus would not issue when there is no legal or constitutional obligation which is capable of being enforced by it. There is no legal or statutory duty which can be enforced in the present case. Mandamus can not issue against public servant to enforce contract independently of any statutory duty or obligation to the applicant/petitioner. Condition precedent to the issue of mandamus are that the applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty distinguished for a discretion. Such duty may be imposed by Constitution; a statute; or by rules or orders having force of law. The condition essential for issue of mandamus are not made out in this case.” Almost similar are the prayers made in the present writ petition. Mandamus can not issue to the Government to re-fix the reserve price as it would be in the discretion of the Government to decide about the manner of holding auction and for fixing the reserve CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4892 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: price. If any person finds that the reserve price fixed is excessive, it is open for him not to participate in the auction. One writ petition after another obviously is being filed by those persons who are already having contracts in their favour and as such, opposing the move of the Government. This may avoid competition. Petitions are being filed raising one ground or the other through different petitions just to stall the move of the Government to conduct the auction. The prayers made in the present petition are clearly not within the purview of writ of certiorari or mandamus. The petitioners have no legal or constitutional right in their favour, for which they can maintain the writ petition. The writ petition is, thus, totally without any merit and is dismissed. January 22,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE