Geeta Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Geeta Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Mining Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 within two weeks, the appellate authority shall, after hearing, pass a reasoned order within the statutory time period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the forfeiture of earnest money, revocation of the letter of acceptance and two-year debarment could stand when the impugned order did not address the petitioner's factual plea that the settled sandghat had no sand, only silt, despite the tender clause requiring pre-bid technical investigation. +1 more

Court's answer

Although Clause 42 sub-Clause-XIX of the tender document stipulated a pre-bid technical investigation, the impugned order did not address the factual issue raised by the petitioner; the merits of that factual controversy were left to the appellate authority.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Mining Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 within a period of two weeks, the appellate authority shall, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned order within the statutory time period.

Key takeaways

A reasoned order from the appellate authority within the statutory time period was called for because the petitioner has been visited with a debarment order for two years.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ, for the Bench with Partha Sarthy, J) disposed of CWJC No.2509 of 2025, in which Geeta Enterprises challenged the order dated 19.11.2024 of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani forfeiting its earnest money, revoking its letter of acceptance and debarring it from sandghat tenders for two years. Excavation could not begin because the settled sandghat contained only silt and no sand; though Clause 42 sub-Clause-XIX of the tender document required bidders to conduct a pre-bid technical investigation, the impugned order did not deal with this factual plea. Without deciding the merits, the Court directed that if the petitioner appeals to the Mining Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 within two weeks, the appellate authority shall, after affording hearing, pass a reasoned order within the statutory period, the petitioner having been subjected to a two-year debarment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2509 of 2025

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

Geeta Enterprises a proprietorship firm having its place of business at C- 24 Narayan, Vihar Colony, Bikaner, Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001 through its authorised signatory namely Netram Male aged about 34 years, Son of Tiloka Ram, resident of Ward No.- 05, Khoda, P.S.- Rawat Sir, DistrictHanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335524.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Madhubani.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Mines Inspector cum Competent Authority, Madhubani, (Cluster No.6).

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (26) For the Mining : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate Ms. Kalpana, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 03-03-2025

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

19.11.2024 issued under the signature of respondent

No.3/District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhubani

whereby the earnest money deposited by the petitioner

against participation in the tender process for settlement

Patna High Court CWJC No.2509 of 2025 dt.03-03-2025 2/3

of sandghats was forfeited and the letter of acceptance was revoked. The petitioner has also been debarred from

participating in future tenders for a period of two years.

It appears that the process of excavation of sand could not be started for the reason of absence of sand and only presence of silt in the sandghat settled with the petitioner, for which he was the highest bidder.

Though Clause 42 sub-Clause-XIX of the

tender document clearly stipulates that bidders would be required to conduct a technical investigation before participating in the bid, but considering the fact that the order impugned does not address this factual issue raised

by the petitioner, we direct that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Mining Commissioner under the provisions contained in Section 67 (2) of the Bihar Minerals (concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019, within a period of two weeks, the appellate authority shall, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass a

Patna High Court CWJC No.2509 of 2025 dt.03-03-2025 3/3

reasoned order within the statutory time period, as the

petitioner has been visited with debarment order for two

years.

With the aforenoted observation, the writ

petition is disposed of.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J)

Harsh/ Sunil

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A
Uploading Date	05.03.2025
Transmission Date