Allowed

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Bal Mukund v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2023WPC/235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a mining lessee seeking refund of security deposit and 40% of bid amount after State authorities failed to execute a lease agreement despite issuance of Letter of Intent and obtaining environmental clearance. The Court held the petitioner entitled to refund with interest even without filing application under the 2020 amendment to condone delay.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 2,50,50,000/- comprising security deposit and 40% of bid amount within two months with simple interest at 6% per annum from 14.08.2015.

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 235 of 2022

¶2

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorised Signatory, Bal Mukund ... ... ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶5

Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Godda

¶7

District Mining Officer, Godda

¶8

Assistant Mining Officer, Godda …

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prakash Narayan, Advocate Mr. Anant Vikram, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I ---------

¶13

05/Dated: 10.07.2023

¶14

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

1. At the outset, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the matter is already covered by a judgment rendered by us on 17.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 227 of 2022 and therefore, appropriate order may be passed in this case also.

¶17

2. By filing the instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the full amount of security deposit and 40 % of the bid amount amounting to Rs.50,10,000/- and Rs. 2,00,40,000/-, respectively, total amounting to Rs. 2,50,50,000/- pertaining to ‘Sangrampur Sand Ghat Mining Project on Sundar River’ situated at Mouza Sangrampur in the district of

¶18

¶19

Godda, having an area of 12.68 acres in view of the fact that the respondent authorities have never entered into an agreement with the petitioner pertaining to the said sand Ghat and the petitioner was further not allowed to excavate the sand from the mining site. It is also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18 % per annum on the amount to be refunded to the petitioner towards security deposit amount and other dues, as stated above.

¶20

Though in the writ application, the petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondent-authorities on the one hand not entering into an agreement and allowing the petitioner to excavate the sand from the sand Ghat and, on the other hand, not refunding the amount of security deposit and 40 % of the bid amount to the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his prayer only to a direction for recovery of the amount due to him along with interest.

¶21

3. From the records, it is apparent that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide public notice dated 30.03.2015 would invite applications in terms of Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, for allotment/settlement of various sand Ghats of District of Godda for the financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18. The petitioner participated in the bid and was declared successful pertaining to Sangrampur Sand Ghat, having an area of 12.68 acres situated at Mouza Sangrampur in the district of Godda. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a Letter of Intent vide letter No. 459/M dated 02.05.2015.

¶22

As required, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,10,000/being the security deposit with the respondent authority and further an

¶23

¶24

amount of Rs.2,00,40,000/- being 40% of the bid amount was further deposited by the petitioner. The payments were made on 13.05.2015. The petitioner duly intimated the aforesaid facts to the respondentauthorities vide his letter dated 13.05.2015 and online acknowledgment was issued in favour of the petitioner. From the said acknowledgment, it is clear that the petitioner has already uploaded its application for grant of Environmental Clearance, which was uploaded by the petitioner on 01.07.2015. The petitioner applied for grant of Environmental Clearance with the competent authority but, there was inordinate delay in processing the application by the concerned authorities. Hence, the petitioner intimated regarding filing of application for grant of Environmental Clearance and duly intimated the aforesaid fact to the respondent-authority vide letter dated 22.08.2015.

¶25

The petitioner applied afresh before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘SEIAA’ for brevity) for grant of environmental clearance and pursuant to the said application, the petitioner was granted environmental clearance on 31.08.2018. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide letter dated 06.02.2019 sought clarification from respondent no.1, i.e., the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Ranchi seeking clarification regarding execution of agreement in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed repeated reminders before respondent, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide its representations dated 13.07.2019 and 30.07.2019 to execute the agreement with the petitioner for carrying out the work of excavation of sand. However, the petitioner’s prayer did not yield any result. On 14.10.2020, the petitioner again filed representation before the respondent authority requesting the authority to execute the agreement in question with the

¶26

¶27

petitioner. Despite such representation being filed by the petitioner, no step was taken by the respondents in execution of the agreement of the petitioner.

¶28

On 02.03.2017, the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 were amended wherein Rule 9(1)(e) was inserted and by virtue of such amendment, it was provided that if a Letter of Intent has been issued and the Environmental Clearance has not been obtained within a period of 180 days then the Letter of Intent shall be deemed to have lapsed/withdrawn etc.

¶29

On 21.09.2020 the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda requesting the said authority to either enter into an agreement with the petitioner or to refund the security deposit of the petitioner along with the bid amount. The petitioner was informed through letter dated 15.07.2021 that the guidelines have been issued by the office of the Director, Mines, Jharkhand vide letter no. 1507/M Ranchi dated 27.10.2020 wherein, direction was issued for execution of work towards operation of sand Ghat of the petitioner in terms of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020.

¶30

On 28.09.2020, a further amendment was carried out in the aforesaid Rules and a proviso was inserted under Rule 9(1)(e) of the aforesaid Rules, inter alia , providing that in appropriate cases, where an environmental clearance could not be obtained within a period of 180 days, for no fault of the intending lessee, the Commissioner of Mines have the power to direct for execution of Lease Deed even beyond the period of 180 days from the date of issuance of the Letter of Intent.

¶31

In other words, to condone the limitation of obtaining the environmental clearance within 180 days was vested with the

¶32

¶33

Commissioner of Mines. The petitioner on several occasions requested the respondent authority to enter into the agreement but, it yielded no result. Hence, this writ application.

¶34

4. The main contention raised by the State that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Commissioner of Mines in terms of proviso added by virtue of amendment of 2020 to condone the delay and execute the lease agreement in favour of the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶35

5. A similar question arose in the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 227 of 2022 between the same parties wherein, we have taken into consideration certain principles of law and come to the following legal conclusions:-

¶36

“7. It is also brought to our notice that a similar question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , (2020) 19 SCC 241 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the State should act as a model litigant. In that respect, the Hon’ble Apex Court further took into consideration the observations made by it in the earlier decided cases viz. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohan Lal , (2010) 1 SCC 512 ; Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs Union of India , (1974) 3 SCC 554 ; Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International , (1979) 4 SCC 176 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated time and again that the Government and public authorities should adopt the practice of relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that, if a Government or a public authority takes a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what the Hon’ble Supreme Court felt is that a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.

¶37

The three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh Vs. State (UT of Chandigarh) , (1985) 3 SCC 737 has held that the State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of its citizens.

¶38

We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Indisputably, in this case, the money has been deposited by the petitioner with the State Government, specifically with the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. It is also not disputed that he would not operate the sand sources because of delay in obtaining the environmental clearance. It is also not disputed that the amendment that was made to the Jharkhand Minor Mineral

¶39

¶40

Concession Rules are applicable prospectively and it does not have any retrospective effect and that is the reason, we are of the opinion that even if the petitioner has not made an application in terms of the second amendment, as referred to above, the petitioner can claim for recovery of the money already deposited by him in favour of the respondents.”

¶41

6. In applying the same principles of this Court, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be refunded with the amount, he has already deposited with the respondents. The State of Jharkhand being a welfare State should not gain unreasonable benefit rendering financial losses to the citizens.

¶42

7. In that view of the matter, the writ application is allowed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 50,10,000/deposited as security deposit and 40% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 2,00,40,000/- total amounting to Rs. 2,50,50,000/- within a period of two months hence, along with simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum to be calculated from 14.08.2015, till the date of actual payment.

¶43

8. Let the order be communicated to the respondents at the cost of the petitioner. Requisites etc. shall be filed in the Registry within 10 days.

¶44

9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶45

10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶46

11. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

¶47

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶48

(Ananda Sen, J.)