Nirmal Singh Chauhan @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The question, raised in this writ petition filed in public interest, is whether the respondent State is justified in inviting bids through tender system and

drawal of lots instead of resorting to the e-tender process.

Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 (applicant in stay vacation application), would submit that it is only for the areas, which

are identified by the Government after the amended Rules came into force, is the e-tendering process required to be resorted to; and the subject lots

were identified by the Government, for grant of mining leases, much before the Rules were amended on 31.10.2017.

On the other hand, Sri Arun Pratap Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 147 of 2018 (Ritesh Nariyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) dated 19.09.2018. In Ritesh Nariyal’s case, the

Division Bench, no doubt, observed that e-tendering process should be resorted to. The fact, however, remains that the applicability of the amended

Rules to the lots identified by the Government for grant of mining lease, prior to the amendment of the Rules, did not arise for consideration in the said

case. While a fair and transparent mode of inviting bids must, undoubtedly, be resorted to in order to preserve larger public interest of maximizing

revenues of the State, it is stated, on behalf of Corporation-respondent no. 3, that tenders are being invited; and it is only where the bids received,

pursuant to such tenders, are equal is the lottery system resorted to identify which of the such bidders should be granted the lease.

While the e-tendering process is a fair and transparent mode of granting mining lease, and would undoubtedly enable the State to maximize its

revenues, it cannot be said that the tendering process presently resorted to by the State, by itself and without anything more, is not a fair and

transparent mode. It is always open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of this Court if, in a particular case, a particular tender process has

resulted in loss of revenue to the State. The effect of the interim order, passed in the writ petition, is that the respondent-Corporation is disabled from

inviting bids and granting mining leases. As a result, the respondent Corporation is unable to generate any revenue, much less maximize its revenues.

We consider it appropriate, therefore, to vacate the interim order of status quo, and direct the respondent-Corporation to inform, in writing, all

successful tenderers, to whom a mining lease is granted, that their tender shall be subject to the result of the writ petition, and they shall not be entitled

to claim equities later.

Stay vacation application stands disposed of accordingly.