Ashish Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ / order / direction and quash / set aside the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 and further be pleased to directed the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order regarding the extension of lease period with prospective effect for Khasra No. 01 at Village Dabha, Tehsil Magarlod, Khasra No. 2 at Village Rajpur, and Khasra No. 403 at Village Joratarai, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief / reliefs which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. ”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was duly declared as the preferred bidder by the Mineral Department, Dhamtari on 25.09.2019, and thereafter the excavation plan was also approved on 23.10.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner was granted the necessary environmental clearance on 31.12.2019, completing all statutory requirements for lawful mining operations. He would also submit that the original lease period came to an end on 05.01.2022. He would contend that a revision application was filed by the petitioner and same was allowed on 30.05.2022, and the matter was remitted back to the Collector, District Dhamtari for reconsideration, thereafter, vide order dated 24.11.2022, the lease agreement was extended and the same was granted with retrospective effect from 06.01.2022 to 05.01.2023, i.e., covering the period during which the previous lease was expired. However, despite the petitioner having complied with all legal requirements and being granted extension of lease, the respondent authorities issued the impugned communication dated 05.10.2023, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the record as well as the orders already passed in favour of

¶27

3

¶28

the petitioner; thus, the petitioner would pray that impugned communication dated 05.10.2023 deserves to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit as per Rule 4 of Chhattisgarh General Sand (Excavation and Business) Rules, 2019 and instructions dated 01.10.2021, all the sand mining lease holders were directed to fulfill all the eligibility criteria for further extension of sand lease for one year. He would further submit that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory requirements for all three sand mines. Only partial payments were made for one mine and registered extension deeds were not submitted for the remaining two mines. He would also submit that the extension orders dated 24.11.2022 and 08.12.2022 were conditional and subject to compliance. He would contend that the petitioner failed to fulfill all conditions. He would further contend that the communication dated 05.10.2023 is merely an internal correspondence and not a final order affecting rights. He would also submit that petitioner sought refund of performance security. He would argue that pursuant to orders passed in WPC No. 5109/2023, the petitioner was refunded Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- for each mine) vide demand drafts dated 25.04.2024. He would further argue that with expiry of lease period and refund of security deposit, no subsisting lease or any right survives; thus, the instant writ petition has become infructuous and is not maintainable.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the original lease period expired on 05.01.2022; extension was granted retrospectively up to 05.01.2023; the said extended period has also expired, & the petitioner has sought and obtained refund of the entire performance security amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 25.04.2024.

¶32

4

¶33

Once the lease period has expired and the security deposit has been refunded at the instance of the petitioner, the contractual relationship between the parties stands concluded. No subsisting leasehold right remains in favour of the petitioner. The impugned communication dated 05.10.2023 is shown to be an internal communication between the Collector and the Government. It does not create any independent right. The relief sought for prospective extension of lease cannot be granted once the contractual term has expired. Further, the extension of mining lease is governed by the statutory rules made by the Government from time to time.

¶34

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby

¶35

dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Vatti

Ashish Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Archana Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nemin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Kumar Mohale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager Vs Arun Kumar Das