AMITAVA ROY,CJ - (1.) THE order impugned has been rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13741/2012 instituted by M/s Ganpati Associates (respondent no.4 in appeal no.118/2013 and appellant in appeal no.119/2013) questioning the validity of the provisional acceptance of the tender of M/s Shiv Shanker Company (appellant in appeal no.118/2013 and respondent no.3 in the writ petition) for grant of lease in relation to excavation of Bajri from river/nala/bhala recorded as Gair Mumkin in the revenue record of Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur. Thereby, however, the official respondents (in appeal no.118/2013) have been directed to accept the bid of the respondent no.5 to the tune of Rs.28 crores offered in Court for the work involved and to execute a contract therefor in its favour.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikas Balia and Mr.Hemant Dutt for the appellant-M/s Shiv Shanker Company in appeal no.118/2013. Mr.N.M.Lodha, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.R.Choudhary and Mr.V.D.Dadhich for the appellant-M/s Ganpati Associates in appeal no.119/2013, Mr.G.R.Punia, Additional Advocate General with Mr.R.K.Soni for the State- respondents and Mr.Dinesh Mehta for the respondent no.5-M/s Surya Associates. The thumbnail facts leading to the filing of the instant appeals are that in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the NIT") issued by the Superintending Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Jodhpur under Rules 21 and 35 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the appellants and respondent no.5 submitted their tenders quoting their bids as hereunder: S.No. Name Bid amount 1 M/s Shiv Shankar Rs.20,17,00,000/- (appellant in appeal no.118/2013 and respondent no.3 in the writ petition) 2 M/s Ganpati Associates Rs.22,17,77,777/- (appellant in appeal no.119/2013 and writ petitioner) 3 M/s Surya Associates Rs.15,58,00,000/- (respondent no.5 herein and in the writ petition as well)
(3.) ON the opening of the tenders, the offer made by the appellant-writ-petitioner-M/s Ganpati Associates having been rejected as the earnest money deposited by it was less than 10% of the bid amount, the offer of appellant-respondent no.3 was provisionally accepted and by letter dated 19.12.2012 (impugned in the writ petition) issued by the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, a decision to this effect was communicated to it. Thereby, the appellant-respondent no.3 was required to deposit 25% of the bid quoted by it within 3 days from the date of opening of the tender. Having come to learn of the ground on which its tender had been discarded, the appellant-writ petitioner on 20.12.2012 claimed to have submitted an application before the concerned authority with a demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- contending that the deficiency in the earnest money to the extent of Rs.27,777/-was an inadvertent error. A request was made to accept the demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- and having regard to the interest of public revenue, to accept its tender and to keep in abeyance, the provisional acceptance of the offer of the appellant- respondent no.3.;