JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions raise identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these three writ petitions briefly stated are as follows : H. U. CONSTRUCTION CO. 's CASE : This writ petition was filed on 24. 6. 1992. In this case, Shri Kesharam petitioner of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1992 has also filed an application to become a party to the writ petition and he has been impleaded as respondent No. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the came to know about the auction of royalty collection contract for Sand Stones excavated in Tehsil Jodhpur on 19. 6. 1992 at 11. 30 A. M. Thereafter, one of the partner of the petitioner-firm Shri Idu Khan approached respondent No. 2 and he was informed that a notification about the impugned auction was notified in local News-Paper Rajasthan Patrika on 4. 6. 1992. Later, he offered Rs. 10,000/- in cash to respondent No. 2 but that was not taken. According to the petitioner, this auction is against the provisions of r. 34 (a) and (b) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules'), The demand of earnest money of Rs. 5 lakis is also against the provisions of r. 34 (d) of the Rules He has submitted that the auction was conducted on the roof of the Office of the Superintending Engineer (Mines ) and the general public, including the petitioner was not permitted to enter the auction place. He has further submitted that he came to know that the respondents have joined hands with the proposed bidders, who have formed a group and it was because of this that the bid was knocked down at 2. 56 Crores of Rupees whereas the respondents have fixed the target of royalty collection for the year 1992-93 of Rs 2 73 Crores According to the petitioner the impugned auction will result in loss of the revenue of the State Govt. to the tune of Rs. 1. 5 crores. As per him the impugned auction by the respondents is violative of Arts. 13 14 19 and 21 of the Constitutor the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs as earnest money was also against the provisions of r. 34 (d) of the Rules and the auction has not been taken place at a public place and, therefore, the impugned auction is illegal and deserves to be set aside. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been contended that as the final bid was knowked down in favour of Surajpal Singh & Party and they have deposited Rs. 53 lakhs against the instalment of the auction and, therefore, aright has got vested in them. It was further submitted that as Surajpal Singh & Party have not been impleaded as parties to this writ petition, this writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, it should be dismissed on this ground alone.
(3.) IT was further submitted that Shri B. C. Parekh and Akshey Parekh Advocates filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3117 of 1992 (Sales Office System Co. V. State of Raj.) but that writ petition was got dismissed and that fact has not been mentioned in this writ petition and, therefore, material facts have been suppressed by the lawyers of the petitioner. IT was also submitted that these two lawyers also filed a Civil Suit on behalf of one Shri Hanif last year and in that suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed and that was dismissed. Thereafter, they availed their remedy before the District Consumer Protection Forum on that very day on behalf of one Saddam Hussain and obtained an ex-parte stay order. which was vacated in appeal by the State Forum for Consumer Protection, Jaipur. This year also, the advertisement notified for the auction for royalty collection was challenged by filing a writ petition on behalf of Sales Office System Company, Delhi (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3117 of 1992) and ultimately that writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 19. 6. 1992. IT was, therefore, contended that as these facts have been suppressed, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that the notification for the auction for royalty collection contract for sand-stones of Jodhpur region was initially published in the Official Gazette dated 8. 4. 1992 and thereafter it was published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 4. 6. 1992 and Jalte Deep dated 10. 6. 1992. In addition to it, it was also published in Hindustan Times, Jan Satta (Hindi), Navbharat Times (Hindi), Dainik Navjyoti (Hindi) and Hindi Jayte Hind. Thus, a wide publicity was given to the auction notice and the petitioner-firm ought to have known about the auction much before 19. 6. 1992 and, therefore, it was vehemently denied that the petitioner - firm came to know about the auction on 19 6. 1999 at 1 1. 30 AM. According to the respondents, the petitioner never approached the office of the Mining Engineer Jodhpur and never offered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to them. The auction place being a public place, every body was allowed to join and participate in the auction proceedings. The provisions of r. 34 of the Rules have been fully complied with and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the auction proceedings. It was submitted that the petitioner has aot made it clear that who are the persons or the groups related to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan and favoured by the respondents. He has levelled uncalled for and baseless allegations against the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, who has nothing to do with the auction proceedings. ;