Infinity Mining Company v. The State Of Haryana And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:01.09.2017 Infinity Mining Company ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following prayer:- "i) quashing of the entire E-Auction process conducted by respondents on 21.08.2017 and 22.08.2017 in furtherance of the E-Auction/Public Notice dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) with regard to mining site located at Bakharija (Mahendergarh) and Asawari (Dadri) as the entire e-Auction process has turned out to be mere eye wash as inspite of establishing full fledged and detailed pre requisites and also payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other services free, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to bid in an

{2} unfair and arbitrary manner and it has been deprived of participating in the e-auction process solely on the basis of some technical error at the time of validation of the transaction, so that only few selective bidders who were working hand in glove and in collusion with respondentauthorities have been allowed to participate in the E-Auction process resulting in meagre increase of bid amount by only 2% above the reserve price (Rs.47,55,50,000/-) and whereas, the petitioner being a genuine bidder was/is ready and willing to bid by an increase of Rs.5,00,00,000/- above the reserve price more, whereas the increase by the highest bidder is less than even Rs.

{3} the E-auction notice/public notice dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) or in the alternative, treat the petitioner as the highest bidder in view of the terms and conditions laid down by respondents;

iii) direct the official respondents to disclose the names of the highest bidder in the e-auction in question to enable the petitioner to implead them as party respondent in the above petition, as the official respondents inspite of repeated representations/RTI applications are not disclosing the names of the highest bidders.

iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case." After arguing for some time, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the representations, Annexure P-11 (colly) had been filed on 21.08.2017 but the same have not been decided by respondent No.2, so far. He further submitted that he may be allowed to file a detailed and comprehensive representation within a period of three days and a time bound direction be issued to the concerned respondent for deciding the same.

3.

After hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation

{4} raising all the pleas as sought to be raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.2 within a period of three days from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 within a period of next one week in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 01, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No