Patna HC dismissed the PETITIONERS writ petition challenging the settlement of sand Ghats, holding Rule 11A overrides Rule 9A, finding malicious intent behind the application. It is against THE STATE OF BIHAR.
Writ application dismissed; Rs. 10,000/- costs awarded to be deposited in public exchequer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7964 of 2013
====================================================== Narain Prasad Singh, son of late Krishna Prasad Singh, resident of village Bandhawa, P.S. Sajour (Shahkund), P.O. Ratanganj, District Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary of Mines and Mineral Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Mines and Mineral Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 5. The Collector, Banka. 6. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Registration No.024819, B-37 Ayodhya Marg Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, through Director, Ashok Chauk, Khatipura, Jaipur-307021. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Spl. P.P. Mines-cumAddl. Advocate General No.13 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 20-06-2013 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the notification dated 21.03.2013, as contained in Annexure-3, and the notification allegedly dated 24.03.2013, as contained in Annexure4, which are, in fact, public notices issued by the Mines & Geology Department for settlement of sand Ghats of different districts. Further prayer is for setting aside the settlement of sand Ghats, falling in Group-I, in favour of the private respondent. Challenge of the petitioner is based primarily on the ground that, in terms of Rule 9A read with Rule 52 of the Bihar Minor
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
2/10
Minerals Concessions Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), the public notice should have been published in the Official Gazette at least one month before the date of auction. 2. Short facts of the case are that by letter no.61/M.C./Patna dated 13.03.2013, vide Annexure-1, a notification was issued by the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, laying down the rule and manner for settlement of sand Ghats for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013. This notification was published in the light of the fact that, in terms of the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Apex Court, a Group of Ministers was in the process of framing a new sand policy and, in terms of the order dated 13.02.2013 passed in CWJC No.677 of 2013 by this Court, sand Ghats had to be settled for a shorter period in terms of the notification no. 2438 dated 31.12.2009. By this notification, it was provided that sand Ghats have to be settled by public auction for the said period. On the same day, a letter was issued by the Principal Secretary of the Department to all the Divisional Commissioners and the Collectors, vide Annexure-2, for publication of notices in newspapers as per the copy enclosed. 3. The contention of petitioner is that notice was published for the first time on 21st of March 2013, vide impugned Annexure-3, in which last date fixed for purchase of tender papers was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
3/10
20.03.2013 and last date fixed for submission of tender was 21.03.2013. It is contended that petitioner was interested in submitting his tender but as the notice, fixing last date for purchase of tender papers 20.03.2013 and last date for submission of tender as 21.03.2013, was itself published on 21.03.2013, he was deprived of any opportunity for submitting his tender. However, another notice was published on 24.03.2013, vide impugned Annexure-4, in which last date of purchase of tender papers was 24.03.2013 and the last date of submission of tender was 25.03.2013. The stand of the petitioner is that 24.03.2013 being Sunday, petitioner could not purchase tender papers and get bank draft prepared and could not submit his tender on 25.03.2013 by 11.00 A.M., as fixed. Hence, petitioner was deprived of any reasonable opportunity to participate in the tender process this time also which was violative of his rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that in terms of Rule 9, read with Rule 52 (1) (ii) of the Rules, notice inviting tender had to be published in Official Gazette at least one month prior to the proposed date of auction, which provision was mandatory in nature, but not complied by the respondents. In the supplementary affidavit it is stated that in the main writ application, by mistake reference has been made to Rule 9 which
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
4/10
should be read as “Rule 9A”. It was submitted also by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 9A read with Rule 52 has statutory force and is mandatory in nature, violation of which renders the entire auction process as invalid. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on an order of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & others [2002 (1) PLJR 602].
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
5/10
tender papers till 24.03.2013 up to 5.00 P.M. Hence it is contended that the petitioner had all opportunity to know about issue of tender notice well in time and to respond.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
6/10
notice on 15.03.2013 itself. It is stated therein that, after the first notice was published on 15.03.2013, this respondent was the only applicant in respect of Group-I sand Ghats. Hence, while respondents proceeded with settlement of sand Ghats of Group II and III, they postponed the settlement of Group-I sand Ghats and issued fresh notices. It is stated that, after the said notice dated 23.03.2013 was published, two other applicants also submitted their tender in respect of Group-I sand Ghats. Hence, tender of this respondent and the said two applicants were opened and this respondent, being found the highest bidder, was granted settlement and agreement was entered into accordingly.
the very beginning the petitioner had knowledge of issue of tender notice but he never took serious steps to participate in the auction by submitting his tender. He submitted that in response to the said notice published on 23.03.2013, when two other aspirants could submit their tender, nothing prevented petitioner from submitting his tender also as on Sunday, due to closing of financial year, banks and offices were open. He also submitted that in fact, the said notice as contained in Annexure-4 was published on 23.03.2013 itself, which was Saturday and on which day also the offices were open.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
7/10
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
8/10
the petitioner, since the private respondent was the only tenderer in respect of Group-I sand Ghats, the process of settlement in respect of the said sand Ghats was postponed and repeated notices were published. The reply shows that it was laches on the part of the petitioner himself that, as per his case, he could not come to know about the first tender notice dated 15.03.2013 and could not respond thereto. A vague explanation has been given by him in his reply that he was at New Delhi in connection with treatment of his some relation. Without any supporting materials, this explanation of the petitioner cannot be relied upon and accepted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
9/10
support of his case is totally misconceived. Accordingly, reliance placed by him on the said order of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Sinha (supra) is also misconceived as that case related to settlement of stone quarries.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7964 of 2013 (3) dt.20-06-2013
10/10
24.03.2013. By this notice petitioner had opportunity to purchase the tender papers till 5.00 P.M. of 23.03.2013 itself. Petitioner has not produced any material on record to show that he had taken any step to purchase tender papers on that day and to submit his tender afterwards. These circumstances show that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and with a bona fide case and has in fact attempted to mislead this Court.
(Jayanandan Singh, J)
B.T/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mandatory provision of Rule 9A regarding one-month prior gazette notification for sand settlem
Whether the petitioner was bona fide interested in participating in the auction despite availability of earlier notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Chandra Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & othersDistinguished¶13
[2002 (1) PLJR 602]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
NARAIN PRASAD SINGH
STATE OF BIHAR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF MINES AND MINERAL DEPARTMENT
MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.
JAYANANDAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
