Allowed

Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited through Its Director Namely Satish Krishna Tandel v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 May 2015WPC/1441/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a writ petition challenging an amended minor mineral concession rule, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in an upcoming auction by depositing earnest money via cheque. The Court directed the State Government to issue a corrigendum clarifying the rule's wording regarding Gram Panchayat participation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to participate in upcoming auction by depositing earnest money as a cheque; State directed to issue corrigendum clarifying Rule 12.

Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited… — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

¶3

W.P. (C) No. 1441 of 2015 With I.A. No. 2608 of 2015

¶4

¶5

Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited, having its office at R.K. Mission, Kusum Vihar, Morabadi P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Bariyatu, Town & District Ranch (Jharkhand), through its Director, namely, Satish Krishna Tandel, son of Krishna tandel, resident of Flat No. E2, Mahananda apartment, Kanke Road, P.O. kanke Road, P.s. Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶9

Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

-------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P BHATT

¶12

-----For the Petitioner :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G.

¶13

¶14

04/Dated: 06^th of May, 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J.

¶15

At the very outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General representing the State of Jharkhand, states that in the amended Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the word ‘Gram Panchayat Dwara’ as inserted in Rule 12(1) be construed as ‘Gram Panchayat Ke Liye’ in view of the State Government notification dated 17.03.2015 and the auction notices, Annexure- A (series) annexed with I.A. No. 2608 of 2015, whereby the petitioner is praying for interim relief.

¶16

Mr. Ajit Kumar has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-A, annexed with counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein it is mentioned that the auction will be settled by the Deputy Commissioner only and that the agreement shall also be executed into writing between the Deputy Commissioner and the successful bidder. From this, Mr. Ajit Kumar wants to submit that even as per the amended rule position of Rule

¶17

-2-

¶18

12(1), the auction to be settled by the Deputy Commissioner is for the Panchayat and not through the Panchayat.

¶19

Mr. Ajit Kumar fairly conceded that this position would relate to Rule 12(2) of amended Rules also.

¶20

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, while agreeing to what is stated by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, which according to Mr. Sinha redresses the grievance of the petitioner as projected in the instant petition but for somewhat more clarity in the amended Rules as well as the circular dated 17.03.2015, he submitted that necessary clarifications are required to be issued by the State Government.

¶21

Undoubtedly, the State Government shall take necessary steps for issuance of corrigendum today itself, which shall be made public through electronic media as well as print media. This, in our considered view, might fetch more participants for the auction settlement, which would be in the interest of State only.

¶22

At this stage, Mr. Sinha prays that the petitioner on account of throwing challenge to the amended Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 has not applied for participating in any of the auction proceedings. He may be now allowed to participate in the auction proceedings to be held tomorrow onwards. Mr. Sinha submits in this regard certain procedural formalities have to be complied with and a draft with regard to earnest money deposit is also to be submitted to the concerned authority. He states that on account of the time constraint, the petitioner will not be in a position to prepare the draft of the earnest money for participating in the auction to be held tomorrow at least. He thus prays that for the auction to be held tomorrow at least, instead of a draft, a cheque of earnest money may be accepted on behalf of the petitioner.

¶23

-3-

¶24

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Addl. Advocate General, upon instruction supplied to him by the concerned official, who is present in the Court, states that as an exceptional case, the concerned authority will accept even the cheque to be submitted by the petitioner for participating in the auction to be held tomorrow only and not for any other auction to be held in near future.

¶25

Ordered accordingly.

¶26

While disposing of the instant petition, we expect that the State would consider amending Rule 12 (1) and (2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, accordingly.

¶27

Writ petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Since the main writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms, no further order is required to be passed in the present Interlocutory Application ( I.A. No. 2608 of 2015) and stands disposed of.

¶29

As requested copy of the order shall be provided to learned counsel for both the sides under the signature and seal of the Court Master during the course of the day.

¶30

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

¶31

Brajesh/Anu/SI

Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited through Its Director Namely Satish Krishna Tandel v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited through Its Director Namely Satish Krishna Tandel v. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs Health

Khagen Mahto Vs Forest

Manvadhikar Jagriti Kalyan Association through State Secretary Ashok Kumar Dubey Vs Collectariate

The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs Shio Narayan Singh and Ors.

Jamal Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Tata Motors Limited through Its Constituted Attorney Telco Sri Praveen Kumar Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.