Quashed

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Feb 2022CWJC/12595/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner challenged a revision order rejecting its plea regarding erroneous royalty calculation for a 61-day lease extension in 2020. The Court found inherent contradictions in the impugned order concerning the method of calculation and the opportunity of hearing afforded, and quashed the order directing a fresh determination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case no. 03/2020 is set aside, and a fresh order is directed to be passed by the authority after affording adequate opp

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited Vs The… — Mining and Natural Resources | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12595 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhojpur (Ara), through its Director Ashok Kumar aged about 65 years (male), Son of Ram Chandra Saw, resident of Village/Mohalla - Pareo, P.S. Bihta, District - Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 800001.

¶7

The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 800001.

¶8

The Special Secretary Cum Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶9

The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur (Ara).

¶10

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhojpur Ara.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Piyush Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶16

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

¶17

Date : 09-02-2022

¶18

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶19

“(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 18.02.2021, contained in memo no. 565 dated 23.02.2021, passed by

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.12595 of 2021 dt.09-02-2022 2/4

¶21

the Respondent Mines Commissioner in Revision Case no. 03/2020, whereby and whereunder the well-founded revision application of the petitioner against letter no. 2208 dated 22.09.2020 issued by Respondent District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur, Ara and letter no. 2228 dated 26.09.2020 issued by Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur (Ara), has been rejected on wholly erroneous ground without considering the case of the petitioner.

¶22

(ii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no. 2208 dated 22.09.2020 issued by the Respondent District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur Ara, to the extent that it directs the petitioner to deposit Rs. 37, 18, 10,799/ - as royalty for the extended period of 61 days i.e. from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, since the same is based upon erroneous calculation.

¶23

(iii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing letter no. 2228 dated 26.09.2020 issued by the Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur (Ara), whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 37,18,10,799/- as royalty for the extended period of 61 days i.e. from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020.

¶24

(iv) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Collector, Bhojpur Ara to recalculate the royalty payable by the petitioner for the District of Bhojpur (Ara) for the extended period of 61 days i.e. from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, considering the fact that the year 2020 was a leap year comprising of 366 days.

¶25

(v) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the excess royalty paid by the petitioner for the extended period of 61 days i.e. from 01.11.2020 till

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.12595 of 2021 dt.09-02-2022 3/4

¶27

31.12.2020.

¶28

(vi) To award any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found entitled in the facts and the circumstances of the case.

¶29

In view of the inherent contradictions in para-2 and para 5 of the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case no. 03/2020, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order with a further direction to the authority to pass a fresh order, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶30

The contradiction emanates as a result of the method adopted for determining the amount, due and payable, for the period for which the extension was granted. Unlike for the period 2019, where the calculation is on the basis of calendar year, the calculation for the subsequent period i.e. 2020, is on the basis of number of days for which the period stood extended. The fact that the year 2020 was a leap year stands noticed, but the petitioner's request for calculating the said year to be of 366 and not 365 days stands rejected.

¶31

It is in this view of the matter, we direct the authority to pass a fresh order also accounting for the correctness of the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Assistant Director, whereby the petitioner's request stood

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.12595 of 2021 dt.09-02-2022 4/4

¶33

rejected, which also was subject matter of challenge before the revisional authority.

¶34

As such, for the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case no. 03/2020, titled as Broad Son Commodities Private Limited Vs. Collector, Bhojpur & Ors. is set aside with a direction to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶35

As such, instant petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶39

( S. Kumar, J)

¶40

Sujit/Ashwini

¶41

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	14.02.2022
Transmission Date

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

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

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar

Faiyaz Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Singh Vs Punjab National Bank

The Union of India Vs M/s Eleco Construction Private Limited

Broad Son Commodities Private Limited Vs The State of Bihar