AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the tender notification issued by the District Collector in Na. Ka. No. M1/1807/2012 dated 04.04.2012
published in the Tirunelveli District Gazette Extra-Ordinary Issue NO. 5 dated 10.04.2012 in so far as it relates to the stone quarries. Heard Mr.
V. Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and
Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
The petitioner claims that he is one of the persons interested in participating in the Tender-cum-Auction. The main ground on which the counsel
for the petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the notification as mentioned above is that Rules 8(1)(b)(i) and 8(1)(b)(ii) of Minor Mineral
Concession Rules 1959 have been violated by the authorities and there was no proper advertisement or notification as contemplated in the above
stated Rules and hence, the same should be quashed.
The Rules 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 is extracted hereunder:
Rules (8) (1)(a)
The District Collector shall publish a notice in the District Gazette inviting tender applications (in sealed cover) for grant of lease of areas for
quarrying minor minerals other than the minerals covered under Rules 8-A and 8-C of these rules:
(Provided that in respect of stone quarries, publication of the notice in the District Gazette shall be made only after a notification is made in the
District Gazette inviting applications for direct grant of leases to the special categories under sub-rule (10-A) of this rule. An area for stone quarry
lease not notified in the notification under sub-rule (10-A) shall not be included in the notice to be published subsequently under this clause)
(b) The District Collect shall give further publicity to invitation of tender applications-
(i) by advertisement in one issue of a Tamil daily newspaper having wide circulation in the district and in the State; and
(ii) (by notice in the language of the district put up at the office of the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar, Joint
Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director (Geology and Mining) of the district and local bodies concerned having jurisdiction over the area.
The following interim order was granted by this Court on 03.05.2012:
There shall be an order of interim stay in respect of confirmation of auction alone in view of the assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of this
petition in para 3. It is made clear that the auction may go on and only by virtue of this order, the confirmation of auction in respect of item Nos. 3
and 9 in respect of notification of the District Collect in Na. Ka. No. M1/1807/2012 dated 04.04.12 is stayed.
The respondent No. 2 got himself impleaded in this Writ Petition stating that he has been declared as a highest bidder and the writ petition has
filed on a misconception of the above said Rules.
In support of this plea Mr. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent stated that the newspaper namely, ''Thina Boomi'' is a
daily newspaper having wide circulation. The plea of the petitioner that the notification is published in a paper which does not have wide circulation
is bad.
He further pointed out that the newspaper ''Thina Boomi'' contains several advertisements issued by the District Authorities. Some of it relates to
Noon Meal Scheme, High Ways Department and Revenue Department etc. Therefore, the plea that the newspaper does not having wide
circulation is not correct.
Insofar as the second contention that notice in the language of the District has not been put up at the office of the District Collector, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar and Local bodies having jurisdiction over the area is also not correct. The learned Government Advocate relying
upon the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent stated that the notice was in fact put up in all offices. The District Collector has clearly stated
that Rule 8(1)(b)(ii) has been followed and relied upon the counter affidavit. It has been stated therein as to how the notification has been published
and therefore, it is contended that the said Rule has been complied with. Para No. 3 (i) of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
3(i) Regarding the averments in para 3 and 4 it is submitted that the notification for Tender cum Public auction of stone quarries in Government
lands was published sufficiently as instructed in Rule 8 (b) and c of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. A copy of the
notification was published in the notice board of the below offices as per the instructions in Rule 8(1)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral
Concession Rules 1959.
i) District Collectorate
ii) Assistant Director (Mines) Tirunelveli
iii) Assistant Director (Town Panjayat), Tirunelveli
iv) Assistant Director (Panjayat), Tirunelveli
v) Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, Cheranmahadevi & Tenkasi
vi) Taluk Office, Tirunelveli, Sankarankovil, Palayamkottai, Radhapura, Nanguneri, Ambasamudram, Tenkasi, Senkottai, Alangulam, V.K. Pudur
and Sivagiri.
vii) All Panchayat Union Offices in the District.
Shri. Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate stated that Insofar as the paper publication is concerned, the District Collector forwards
the material to be published in the newspaper to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations at Chennai, who undertakes the task of
publishing it in the newspaper which has wide circulation in the District and in the State.
According to Mr. C. Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, the newspaper ''Thina Boomi'' has wide circulation both in the State as
well as in the District and therefore, it qualifies as a Tamil Daily Newspaper for the purpose of advertisement. In any event, the process of Rule
8(1)(b)(i). Since the Tamil Newspaper in question is accepted by the Government to have wide circulation in the District as well as the State, the
requirement of Rule 8(1)(b)(i) is satisfied.
On this premise, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as the counsel appearing for the second respondent
contended that the petitioner is failed to make a prima facie case for grant of interim order. Further, there is no merit in this Writ Petition on the
above stated plea.
In the Writ Petition several other plea are taken and they are purely factual in nature and therefore, this Court should decline to entertain the
Writ Petition on factual aspects of the case which are also disputed.
Having considered the rival submissions and on the interpretation of Rule 8(1)(b)(i) of Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 is concerned, all
that is required is that the newspaper should have wide circulation both in the District as well as the State and the publication by the Directorate of
Information and Public Relations clarifies the petitioner''s doubt. Rule contemplates one advertisement and that has been done. Therefore, the
challenge to impugned tender notification on the ground on non-compliance of Rule 8(1)(b)(i) fails.
Insofar as non-compliance of Rule 8(1)(B)(ii) is concerned, as it has already been extracted above from the counter affidavit, the notification
for Tender-cum-Public Auction has been sufficiently noticed in the various offices mentioned therein and therefore, there is no element of doubt
that the first respondent has failed to comply with the requirement of the said Rule. Hence, the legal plea raised is rejected.
The other issues raised in the affidavit on factual aspects of the case cannot be considered at this point of time as the Writ Court is not inclined
to go into the various factual aspects of the case to decide if the tender process is valid or not.
In grounds ''G'', ''H'' and ''I'', pointing out factual aspects of the Tender-cum-Notice it is challenged stating that it is not feasible to quarry
stones. This Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on such issues. This Court is not inclined to verify the allegations made in grounds
''G'', ''H'' and ''I'' to find out whether the land is fit for stone quarry or not.
A specific plea however is taken in ground ''F'' with regard to the extent of land available for stone quarrying in S.F. No. 105 in respect of
Serial No. 3 of the Tender-cum-Auction notice, to state that the extent shown is not actually available. On this aspect of the matter, the first
respondent concedes that there is a mistake and state that they have not conducted the auction and they have cancelled it subject to verification.
The same is recorded. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot have any issue or complaint in respect of Serial No. 3 of the Tender-Cum-
Auction notice and the relief in respect of Sl. No. 3 become infructuous. Insofar as Serial NO. 9 is concerned, it has been confirmed in favour of
the second respondent. Since the legal plea taken by the petitioner is rejected the writ petition challenging Sl. No. 9 of the tender notification has to
fail. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.