IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1447 of 2011 RAJEEV KUMAR R/O MOHALLA LODHIPUR, WARD NO. 31, POLICE STATION TOWN HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERALS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERALS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI 4. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT COMMISSIONARY, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER VAISHALI 6. M/S MOR MUKUT CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SUBHASH PRASAD YADAV, GURUDAWARA ROAD, NEW DELHI AST PRESENT HETANPUR, MADHOPUR, PATNA. & ORS. ----------- 7. 01.07.2011. The petitioner prays for setting aside the Parwana issued in favour of the private respondent no.6 as contained in Memo no. 531 dated 31.12.2010, whereby the Sand area of the Ganga river in the District of Vaishali (First Unit) for the calendar year 2011 has been settled for a sum of Rs. 32.71 Lakhs. The petitioner also prays for direction to resettle the tender in accordance with law and direct the Vigilance department to probe into the entire matter. The petitioner submits that the authorities were hand in glove with private respondent and settled the sand area to confer him unlawful gain. He further submits that the Department of Mines and Minerals, Vaishali published an advertisement in daily newspaper, namely, ‘Dainik Jagaran’ under the signature of the District Magistrate, Vaishali on 17.12.2010 for the settlement of Balu Ghat (1st Unit) for the 2 calendar year 2011, wherein the last date of purchase of the tender paper was shown as 16.12.2010. The date for submitting tender paper was 18.12.2010 and tender was to be auctioned on 24.12.2010 at 11 am. The petitioner submits that the last date for purchasing tender papers was already over when the notice was published in the newspaper on 17.12.2010. He submits that many participants like him were deprived of participating in the tender. In para 12 of the writ petition it has been averred that the settlement was made for a meager sum of Rs. 32.71 lakhs, whereas for the same 1st Unit sand area the previous settlement was made for an amount of Rs. 95 lakhs causing huge loss of Government Revenue. Both the Mines Department and the private respondent have filed counter affidavits denying the allegation and submitted that due procedure were followed in making the settlement of the sand area. It is submitted on behalf of the state that the Addl. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar advertised public notice in local daily news paper ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 1.12.2010 inviting tenders for the year 2011-12 with regard to all such sand ghats in the different 3 districts in the State of Bihar which have been surrendered by the Ex-settlees. In the said notice, sand ghat (Unit two) of Vaishali district is at serial no.6. He submits that the Collector, Vaishali requested the Director, Department of Information and Public Relation, Bihar, Patna to publish the notice of auction of sand area in two prominent newspapers vide letter no. 502 dated 13.12.2010. The advertisement was received by Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Bihar on 14.12.2010. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the public notice for settlement of sand ghat (Unit one) of Vaishali was posted on the notice board on 13.12.2010 in the office of Asstt. Mining officer, Vaishali. It has further been averred in the counter affidavit that total no. of 10 BOQ for sand ghat of (Unit one) of Vaishali district were sold on 16.12.2010, out of which 8 tender (BOQ) documents were submitted by the last date i.e. 18.12.2010. Thereafter, the tender documents were checked up by a five members constituted committee. The technical document of serial no. 1,7 and 8 were found valid. Public auction was held on 24.12.2010 and respondent no.6 was declared highest bidder at the amount of Rs. 32.71 lakhs for calendar year 2011. The State counsel further 4 submits that the petitioner ought to have preferred revision before the Commissioner under Rule 45 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1972 instead of moving this Court. He submits that earlier the person in occupation of the ghat had not surrendered its possession in time and as such there was some delay in processing the auction notice. He submits that no favoritism was done to the private respondent. Counsel for the private respondent submits that earlier for the year 2010-12 the sand ghat (Unit one) had been settled with one Ashish Kumar at Rs. 95 lakhs for the calendar year 2010. He collected royalty until 31.12.2010 but did not deposit the royalty and ultimately abandoned the sand ghat for which FIR was lodged against the said settlee. Having heard the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court does not find any cogent material for holding that the authorities indulged in granting undue favour to the private respondent no.6 in securing the tender. It has not been controverted that the notice inviting tender was published by the Mines Department pursuant to which 10 tender papers were purchased and eight tender papers were filed. Three 5 applicants including the petitioner qualified for auction bid. All the three participated in the open bid in which respondent no.6 was declared successful and has paid the bid amount on time. The petitioner himself at this stage submits that now the rainy season has commenced and only two effective months would remain for mining and thus did not show much keenness in making a competitive offer for taking settlement for balance period. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner made out a case for interfering with the settlement made in favour of respondent no.6. Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that the respondents in future will take steps for early publication of tender notice in local newspaper to ensure larger and more competitive participation. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Shashi ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)