Ramawtar Meel v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JD:53392]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17502/2026
CNR: RJHC010756462026 | URN: CW / 30445U / 2026

Ramawtar Meel ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through The Joint Secretary. Department Of Mines (Gr. Ii), Khanij Bhawan. Shashtri Circle Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan. (2) The Director, The Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle. Udaipur 313001. Rajasthan. (3) Additional Director (Geology), Hq. Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan. (4) Mineral State Trading Corporation Limited., (Mstc). Through Branch Manager, Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Bsnl Building, Lal Kothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. (5) Financial Advisor (Chairman, Transaction Advisory Committee), Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur 313001, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Bijrnia.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG. Mr. N.K. Bairwa, Superintendent Mining Engineer, present in person.

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the order (hcraj file 206800175022026_2.pdf, 3 pages, uploaded 29.10.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-4 are the Court's own. (2) The cause title is abridged: the petitioner's parentage, age and address are omitted, and the respondents' numbers are shown as (1)-(5); the respondents' official addresses are as printed. (3) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. (4) The petitioner's prayers (a) to (i), quoted in paragraph 1, are kept inline within paragraph 1. (5) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'erroneouS' (prayer a); the line break after 'apparent and bona fide' in prayer (b), after which the sentence continues 'the petitioner's actual typographical/human error' with no word between; 'click history. Digital Signature Certificate', 'oy passing a reasoned. and speaking order' (prayer c); 'forfeiting. encashing' and 'any coercive or penal action the petitioner on the basis of the inadvertent against erroneous bid' (prayer e); '₹560.00,14,474/-' (prayer f, printed '₹560,00,14,474/-' in prayers a and d); and 'Mr. Vikas Bijrnia' in the appearances. Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff lines and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 29.10.2026.]

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

29/10/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents in treating the petitioner's inadvertent and erroneouS bid of ₹560,00,14,474/- as a valid and binding bid in the e-auction conducted on 23.07.2026 for ERCC Nos. 200, 246 & 252, District Churu (Gopalpura, Balera, Lodsar, Chadwas, Randhisar, etc.), and all consequential actions taken or proposed to be taken pursuant thereto. b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider intended bid of ₹56,00,14,474/-, or alternatively, to treat the erroneous bid dated 23.07.2026 as non est on account of an apparent and bona fide the petitioner's actual typographical/human error reported immediately by the petitioner. c. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to examine the complete electronic records relating to the auction, including the server logs, audit trail, click history. Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) logs and all other electronic records maintained by respondent No.4, and thereafter decide the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2026 oy passing a reasoned. and speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. d. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from issuing or acting upon any Letter of Intent (LOI), Work Order or any consequential order founded upon the erroneous bid of ₹560,00,14,474/-, pending consideration of the petitioner's representation and final adjudication of the present writ petition. e. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from forfeiting. encashing or otherwise appropriating the petitioner's Bid Security/Earnest Money Deposit of ₹4,85,68,448/-, or taking any coercive or penal action the petitioner on the basis of the inadvertent against erroneous bid. f. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner's bid of ₹560.00,14,474/- does not represent the petitioner's free and conscious commercial intention and therefore cannot be enforced as a concluded and binding offer. g. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to cancel the erroneous bid submitted by the petitioner and thereafter proceed with the auction strictly in accordance with law by restoring the bidding process from the stage of the next valid highest bid (H-2), with liberty to permit the petitioner to participate, or, in the alternative, to conduct a fresh/re-auction in the interest of fairness, transparency and public interest. h. any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and i. the petitioner may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition.”

2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained complete instructions in the matter. He states that the respondents shall initiate a fresh bidding process with a reserve/base price of Rs.56 crore, wherein all eligible bidders, including the petitioner, shall be entitled to participate once the tender is floated. In view thereof, he submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concurs with the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General and submits that if the respondents initiate a fresh bidding process with the baseline amount of Rs.56 crore, the petitioner has no objection.

4. In view of the consensus arrived at and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J