M/S Unicon Minerals And Mining … vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                        C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009
                                        Date of decision: 5.8.2009


M/s Unicon Minerals and Mining Private Limited.
                                                     ......Petitioner
                                  Vs.

The State of Haryana and others
                                                      ...Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY


PRESENT: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate assisted by
         Ms. Shivani Sehgal, Advocate, for petitioner.
                             ****


ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. This petition seeks quashing of declaration that the bid of

respondent No.8 was the highest in the auction held on 30.7.2009. Further

direction is for protection of bidders in the auction to be held on 6.8.2009 at

Yamuna Nagar.

2. As regards the first prayer, the case of the petitioner is that the

auction was not fairly conducted. The petitioner gave the highest bid of

Rs.13.06 crores but after fall of hammer, respondent No.8 gave still higher

bid, which was accepted. The petitioner is now willing to give still higher

bid.

3. This being disputed question of fact, we do not find it

appropriate to determine the issue in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for

the petitioner says that these grievances have been put forward in its

complaint and letter dated 31.7.2009 and 2.8.2009 (Annexures P-3 and P-4)

and the same may be taken into account by the confirming authority before
C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009 [2]

accepting the bid. There can possibly be no objection to such a prayer.

4. The confirming authority, who is said to be the Secretary to

Government of Haryana, Department of Mines and Geology, may consider

the objections of the petitioner before the bid is confirmed if the petitioner

provides a copy of this order to the said authority, before confirming the

bid.

5. As regards the second prayer, it is stated that to conduct a fair

auction, it is necessary to permit all the bidders to participate and

apprehension of the petitioner is that its representative may not be allowed

to participate in the auction. This again, being a disputed question of fact,

cannot be gone into in these proceedings. It is for concerned authorities to

look into such matters, if raised by the petitioner or any other aggrieved

party.

6. The petition is disposed of.

                                                   (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                          JUDGE



                                                     (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
August 5, 2009                                             JUDGE
raghav

Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ……..Yes/No
C.W.P.No. 11686 of 2009 [3]