Case: Nand Kishore Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan &amp; Another

1. This appeal on certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court is against the dismissal of the appellants writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue e of a writ of certiorari to the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1, for the cancelling and setting aside of its order dated April 1, 1964 granting the contract for collecting royalty on building stones excavated from certain area to respondent. No. 2, Dharti Dan Shramik Theka Sahkari Samiti Ltd., ae society. The appeal arises in these circumstances2. The appellant offered the highest bid at the auction for the grant of royalty collection contract on. Respondent No. 2 was also one of the bidders, but stopped after offering abid of Rs. 33,000. The final bid of the appellant was for Rs. 42,200. The State Government made the order in favour of respondent No. 2 on an application made by it on March 5, 1964, stating therein that the appellant had not deposited 25 per cent. of the bid amount as security immediately after the completion of the auction in accordance with R. 36 (7) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the rules, and as per the terms and conditions of the Auction Notification and that it was prepared to take the royalty collection contract on the highest bid of Rs. 42,200. It was further stated in the application that respondent No. 2 was ae society of the labourers who themselves worked on the mines of the area and therefore in view of Governments policy it should receive preference to an individual bidder. It was further stated that the benefit accruing out of the contract of royalty collection would be shared by the labourers and workers themselves which would go a long way to improve their socioeconomic conditions and thus ultimately would ameliorate the conditions of the workers who were working hard in quarries since long.

Court's reasoning:
8. We therefore hold that the Government was competent to give the contract to respondent No. 2 it being not bound to accept the highest bid at the auction, though usually it accepts such bids9. Another consideration which is decisively against the appellant is that the contract for the collection of royalty for the year5 is shortly to come to an end and it would not be desirable, even if the appellants contentions were acceptable, to interfere with that contract10. Reference, in this connection, may be made to the decision of this Court in K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore,1 SCR 305  : (AIR 1954 SC 592 ) where the appellant was refused a writ solely on the ground that it would have been ineffective, the period of the impugned contract coming to an end after about a fortnight of the order of this Court. That was a case where on merits the Court was of opinion that the writ should have been issued.