R.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) The State Government and its functionaries have taken exception to the order dated 20th January, 2006 passed by the Single Judge, whereby he allowed the writ petition and directed the present appellants to refund the earnest money deposited by the original petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order; failing which the appellants were made liable to pay interest @ 6% on the amount of earnest money until actual payment was made. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.
(2.) On 11.3.1996, the auction was held by the Mining Engineer, Neem Ka Thana for the royalty connection in respect of areas and minerals specified in the advertisement dated 1.12.1995. The period of contract was to be operational for two years from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1998. As per the terms of advertisement, the petitioner deposited earnest money for participation in the auction. The highest bid was given by one Subhash son of Kana Ram in the sum of Rs. 91,00,000/ -. The next bid was by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 82,00,000/ -, it appears that the highest bidder Subhash did not deposit the requisite bid amount and security although he was provisionally selected bidder in terms of Rule 34(g)(vii) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, 'Rules of 1986'). On 29.3.1996, the Mining Engineer, Neem Ka Thana informed the petitioner that he was second highest bidder for Rs. 82,00,000/ - and called upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,83,334/ - towards first instalment in advance and a sum of Rs. 10,25,000/ - towards security. It is pertinent to notice here that although the petitioner was called upon to deposit the amount on 29.3.1996, on the next day i.e. 30th March, 1996, an agreement was entered into with one Hari Singh for royalty collection subject area. On 18.4.1996, the petitioner was informed that the earnest money to the extent of Rs. 4,15,000/ - has been forfeited as he failed to deposit the amount of first instalment in advance and security and that the amount of Rs. 4,15,000/ - has been forfeited out of the earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 85,000/ - may be withdrawn by him. By the communication dated 9.8.1996, same thing was reiterated by the Mining Engineer, Neem Ka Thana. Constrained thereby, the petitioner approached this Court and challenged the legality of the forfeiture of the earnest money in the sum of Rs. 4,15,000/ -.
(3.) The State Government and its functionaries contested the writ petition and justified their stand by submitting that since the petitioner was provisionally selected bidder being the second highest bidder, by not depositing the first instalment in advance and the security, the earnest money was liable to be forfeited under Rule 34(k) read with 34(g)(vii) of the Rules of 1986.;