- (1.) A challenge in this writ petition has been laid to the order dated 24.01.2012 whereby the Mining Engineer, Alwar has cancelled the contract dated 30.03.2011 granted to the petitioner effective 01.04.2011 for a period of two years and forfeited the security deposit as also adjusted the bank guarantee amount against the outstanding dues of the petitioner under the contract for excess royalty collection in respect of mineral masonry stone in the revenue limits of Tehsil Tijara.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondents and perused the writ petition.
(3.) The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no notice as required in law prior to cancelling of the contract dated 30.03.2011 and forfeiting of security deposits was issued to the contractor, nor in fact served upon him. It is submitted that consequently, the impugned order dated 24.01.2012 is vitiated by denial of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. Counsel further submits that in any event, owing to general environmental protection activities in the region and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's central empowered committee inspecting the mining activities in the Tijara revenue District there was a drastic reduction in the mining activities in contracted area substantially impinging on the viability of the contract for excess royalty collection for the mineral masonry stone and making it unviable for the petitioner to make the requisite collection of anticipated excess royalty on which his bid was based. It is submitted that soon after the report of the central empowered committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government itself vide order dated 16.01.2012 directed that the mining activities in 27 mines out of 34 mines for the mineral masonry stone in the Tizara revenue District be stopped effective 18.01.2012. Counsel submits that in these circumstances, while the petitioner was prevented from collecting excess royalty on the mineral masonry stone for reasons not of his making, the respondent-Department has acted unfairly and circumvented the frustration of the contract in the circumstances detailed above by unfairly resorting to its powers to cancel the contract, forfeiting the security amount and adjusting the bank guarantee against the purported outstanding for the month of December, 2011 and January, 2012 without as much as a proper notice and opportunity to the petitioner to state his case.;