Disposed

M/s patel Agri Industries Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Apr 2023L.P.A/125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal over rejection of a mining plan for a tendered block in Khakhandua Block, Nawada, where co-ordinates were disputed between two tenderers. The Court remanded the matter to the Collector to seek fresh mining plans from both tenderers using scientific inputs.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to Collector, Nawada; both tenderers to file fresh mining plans with correct coordinates, decision within 90 days.

M/s patel Agri Industries Private Limited Vs The… — Mining and Natural Resources | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.125 of 2021 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8374 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

M/s patel Agri Industries Private Limited through its Director Kunkun

¶5

Prasad, aged about 56 Years, one of the Director of Fatel Agri Industries Pvt. Ltd., Resident of B/116, PC. Colony Lohiyanagar, ThanaKankarbagh, District-Patna.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology. Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District Magistrate, Nawada.

¶11

The Mineral Development Officer, (Head Officer) Bihar, Patna.

¶12

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology. Nawada.

¶13

Rajendra Singh Son of Late ramdeo Singh Resident of Makan No.15, Mother Tresha Road, Utri Sri Krishnapuri, Phulwari, Pataliputra, Patna 800013.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

================== Appearance :	====================================
For the Appellant/s	: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent No.6	: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Adv.
	: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Adv.
	: Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Adv.

¶16

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 2/9

¶17

For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Adv. For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Adv.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶20

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶21

16 19-04-2023

¶22

We have heard Shri Jitendra Singh, the learned

¶23

Senior Advocate for the appellant/ M/s Patel Agri. Industries Pvt. Ltd; Shri Sanjay Singh, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6 (Rajendra Singh),

¶24

the tenderer for Block -A, Khandua Block and Mr. Naresh Dixit, the learned Advocate for the Mines Department. Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha has assisted us on behalf of the State.

¶25

The challenge in the present appeal is to the Judgment dated 22.12.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C No 8374 of 2020.

¶26

The appellant had approached the writ Court against the decision of the authorities rejecting the mining plan submitted by him on the ground of same

¶27

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 3/9

¶28

having been carved out by using co-ordinates which were not part of the original NIT scheme.

¶29

Though, the issue was decided against the appellant primarily on the ground that there was a fresh verification and demarcation in presence of the authorized representative of the appellant but Mr. Singh, submits that the Collector, the authority who had to accept the mining plan with correct co-ordinates, had later found out that the co-ordinates suggested by the appellant did not traverse any forest area and, therefore, there was something wrong with respect to acceptance of the mining plan by respondent No. 6 with respect to Block – A of the Khakhandua Block.

¶30

To have the facts straight, it is necessary to record that both the appellant and Respondent No. 6 had

¶31

participated in the tender process for settlement of mining area in Khakhaandua Block in the district of Nawada.

¶32

Two blocks were put to tender, namely, Block

¶33

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 4/9

¶34

-A and -B; Block -A being of slightly larger area of 16.5 acres whereas Block -B was of 16 acres. The tender of respondent No.6 for Block -A was accepted whereas the appellant was given Block -B. Both the tenderers were directed to submit their mining plans with correct coordinates.

¶35

The mining plan given by Respondent No. 6 was accepted which was with respect to Block -A whereas mining plan given by the appellant for Block -B was not acceptable initially for the reason that it was found beyond the co-ordinates which were part of the demarcation in the NIT and later on the ground that if such co-ordinate was to be accepted, the area of mining would encroach on forest land. In this connection, it would be necessary to refer to rule 20 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 which provides that the minor minerals lying inside any forest area may be settled by the Collector with the condition that the prospective

¶36

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 5/9

¶37

settlee brings due permission from the Forest Department under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶38

It further specifies that the formal mining lease deed shall be executed only after the required clearance from the Forest Department is received.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the co-ordinates which was kept in mind while drawing up the mining plan for Block -B was in accord with the NIT demarcation.

¶40

The objection of the Mines Department came only in the wake of the respondent No.6 having submitted a wrong plan for Block -A which perhaps has lessened the mining area for the appellant in Block -B.

¶41

As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Sanjay Singh, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6 has submitted that there was no objection ever with respect to the mining plan suggested/given by him with respect to Block -A. It was only when the mining plan given by the appellant with

¶42

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 6/9

¶43

respect to Block -B was not found to be in accord with the co-ordinates in the original NIT demarcation /

¶44

allocation, that the appellant was asked to submit a fresh mining plan.

¶45

We find that later, it was found that some part of the mining area shown in the mining plan of the appellant fell in the forest area requiring a re-alignment of the co-ordinates.

¶46

At the instance of the appellant, the issue was taken up by Mining Department in its Bihar Remote Sensing Mining Center, which reported that no part of the co-ordinate suggested by the appellant covered any forest area.

¶47

If this be the report obtained through scientific method, Mr. Jitendra Singh, the learned Senior Advocate

¶48

argues that there was no necessity for asking the appellant for a fresh mining plan. Additionally, it has been argued that whatever problem was found was only because of the wrong mining plan given by Respondent

¶49

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 7/9

¶50

No. 6.

¶51

The respondent No. 6 vehemently opposes such

¶52

argument and submits that the moment the District Magistrate tried to interfere in the matter with respect to the co-ordinate suggested by respondent No. 6, the matter was taken to the Commissioner, Mines Department in appeal who forbade the Collector to pass any order with respect to the mining plan suggested by respondent No.6.

¶53

This order of the Commissioner has been stayed by the predecessor Bench hearing this appeal.

¶54

The sum and substance of the entire dispute is that the mining plan given by the appellant was not acceptable in the beginning. The mining plan given by the respondent No.6 was though accepted in the beginning but in the event of re-alignment in order to bring everything within the parameters of the Forest Laws and in accord with the demarcation in the NIT, both the tenderers have not been permitted to mine in

¶55

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 8/9

¶56

the leased land.

¶57

This situation enures benefit to none.

¶58

We, under the aforesaid circumstances, deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the Collector, Nawada to take a fresh look at the matter by asking both the tenderers to file their fresh mining plans with correct coordinates.

¶59

The inputs provided by the Remote Sensing Centre under the Mines Department shall also be taken into account in vetting the mining plans suggested by the parties. A decision to this effect shall be taken by the Collector within a period of 90 days positively. This would require the Collector to give some time to both the parties, namely, the appellant and respondent No.6 to file their fresh mining plan in accordance with the requirements under the NIT.

¶60

Be it noted that any observation made by the learned single Judge shall not be taken into account while deciding the matter fresh.

¶61

Patna High Court L.P.A No.125 of 2021(16) dt.19-04-2023 9/9

¶62

We have specified that the scientific inputs ought to be taken into account and the controversy

¶63

ought to be resolved forthwith. This remand therefore sets at rest the dispute raised by the respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner against the order of the Collector since the entire matter is to be decided afresh by the Collector.

¶64

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with

¶65

the aforenoted observation.

¶66

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶67

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶68

Mayank/SunilKumar

¶69