RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,.. 
RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
MayB, 1985 
[D.A. DESAI, J.) 
541 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226-Jurlsdiction of High Court-
Petitioner to exhau&t normal statutory re~die1-lnslstenc• on-Whtn arises-
1'1llt of exhaustion of alternative remedies-Whether a rul• of /aw or a rule of 
conv1nlence and discretion. 
Haryana Minor Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 197 3 and Punjab Minor 
Mlnoral Concmlon Rules, 1964, Rule 130 (4) (2)-Auctlon of minor mineral 
quarry-Chief Minister declining to confirm highest bid-Awarding right to 
another person without giving opportunity to the highest bidder in the earlier 
auction, Hith Court, whether entitled to interfere in a writ. 
Administrative Law-Public Property-Norms for dbposal of-Principles 
•/Natural justJc~Appllcab//ity of. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The State 
Oovernment·rcspondeot No. l issued a 11otification for 
auctioning a minor mineral quarry situated in the State. The appellant offered 
the highest bid in the amount of Rs. 3.87 lakhs per annum as rent/royalty. 
E 
The Presiding Officer accepted the bid of the appellant. 
The State Govern-
ment however under the belief that the highest bid did not represent the 
adequalc lease rent, exercised powers under clause (4) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 
t30 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1964 and declined to con-
firn1 the aame. 
Respondent No. 4 wrote a letter to the Chief Minister 
casting serious aspersions on those who participated in the auction, and made 
p 
an offer that if the contract for a period of 5 years ii given he was willina to 
pay Rt. 4.S lakhs per year. The Chief Minister accepted this offer. 
Beine aggrieved, tho appellant challenged the order of the Chief 
Minister, in a writ petition before the High Court, contending that respondent 
No. 4 had participated in the auction and made false alJegations against the 
appellant, and without giving him any opportunity, the offer of respondent 
No. 4 was accepted which has denied equality of opportunity to the appellant 
in the matter of distribution of the State largesse. The High Court following 
the decision of this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Exci" v. Jainson 
Hosiery Industries, (1979] 4 SCC 22, dismissed the writ petition on the ground 
that tho appellant had an alternative remedy and that he must have exhausted 
tho normal statutory remedie~ before invokin' the extraordinary jurisdiction 
under Article 226. 
· 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
S4Z 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) SUPPL. s.c.a. 
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court and during 
its hearing filed an affidavit, that if the Court orders re-auction, and if the 
highest bid falls short of Rs. 4.5 lakhs then he would undertake to accept the 
contract at the value of Rs. 5,5 lakhs per annum. The Court held a re-
auction and both the appellant and respondent No. 4 participated therein and 
the appellant offered the hishest bid at the value of Rs. 25 lakhs. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD : 1. 
(i) The Court has imposed a restraint in 
it~ own wisdom 
on its exercise of juri!\diction under Article 226 where the party invoking the 
jurisdiction has an effective adequate alternative remedy. It has been expressly 
atated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a 
rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. It does not oust 
the jurisdiction or the Court. It is made specifically clear where the order 
complained against is it1leged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to 
law, a petition at the instance of a person adversely affected would lie to the 
High Court under Article 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the 
ground that an appeal lies to the hig1oer officer or the State Government. An 
appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative 
effective remedy. [550 C-F] 
In the instant case, power was e~ercised by the authority set up under 
the rules to grant contract. The High Court did not pose to itself the question 
who would grant the relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance 
of a Chief Minister of the State. This is therefore a case in which the High 
Court was justified in throwing out the petition on the untenable ground that 
the appellant had an effective alternative remedy. [550 G-H) 
Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jai11so11 Hosiery lndrutries, [1979) 
4 S.C.C. 22 and The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Noah, [19'8] S.CR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.