Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 345 (PAT)

JUDGMENT S. N. Jha, J. - These writ petitions relate to dispute regarding grant of mining rights with respect to sand of river Sone in the districts of Rohtas, Bhojpur and Patna. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 445 and 1106 of 1995 the petitioners seek identical reliefs - for a mandamus to issue Parwana in token of the settlement of the Sand Ghats in question and for quashing the order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 13, 1995, C.W.J.C. No. 11382 of 1994 is the converse case. The Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') and its Chairman in that case seek mandamus, to the respondents not to settle the Sand Ghats with the General public by auction and to settle the same in its favour as in the past. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. Nos. 445 and 1106 of 1995 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 11382 of 1994 will be referred to as 'the Corporation'. As the dispute is one and the same, the cases have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The representative facts giving rise to the dispute may be noticed first. On November 28, 1994 a high level meeting under the Chairmanship of the Minister Incharge-Mines was held to consider the question of making settlement of the Sand Ghats of the State. It appears that by virtue of Government decision contained in letter No. 10 dated January 11, 1993 of the Mines and Geology Department, the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation had been authorised to excavate and despatch sand from the Sand Ghats in different districts. Some more areas were added to the list later. In the aforesaid meeting held on November 28, 1994 a decision was taken to continue the old arrangement authorising the Corporation to excavate and despatch sand of the Sand Ghats of Nawada, Nalanda, Ranchi and Old Singhbhum. As regards such Sand Ghats which had not fetched the desired revenue, it was decided to make settlement by public auction. The decision was communicated by the Director of Mines on December 6, 1994. On December 16/18, 1994 auction notice was published in the newspapers fixing the dates of auction as December 21, 28 and 30, 1994. The petitioners participated in the auction and bid the highest amount which, it is said, was accepted. The decision was communicated by the Director of Mines on December 6, 1994. On December 16/18, 1994 auction notice was published in the newspapers fixing the dates of auction as December 21, 28 and 30, 1994. The petitioners participated in the auction and bid the highest amount which, it is said, was accepted. On December 22, 1994 C.W.J.C. No. 11382 was filed in this Court. An interim order was passed on December 23, 1994 permitting the Corporation to make representation in respect of their claim before the Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar, who in that event was directed to consider the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law by reasoned order within two weeks. Although auction process was not stayed, it was directed that the possession of the Ghats in question will not be delivered to the successful bidders in the meantime. The Mines Commissioner vide his notice dated January 10, 1995 took the view that in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on November 28, 1994 the Sand Ghats in question had to be settled by public auction. The Corporation having not participated in the auction was not entitled to any consideration. The plea of the Corporation about its preferential right on the matter of settlement was, in the opinion of the Mines Commissioner, not tenable. However, as the previous decision dated November 28, 1994 had been taken at the Minister's level, the Mines Commissioner thought it proper to place the matter before the Minister for consideration. The Minister vide his minutes dated January 10, 1995 thought otherwise and directed that instead of making settlement in favour of the Corporation the management of the Sand Ghats be entrusted to it as in the past on certain revised terms. The impugned order of the Mines Commissioner entrusting the management of the Ghats in question for the year 1995 were issued on January 13, 1995. The petitioners, who were the highest bidders in the auction held with respect to the respective Sand Ghats, in the circumstances, filed the writ petitions, C.W.J.C. Nos. 445 of 1995 and 1106 of 1995 respectively for the reliefs which have been mentioned at the outset. 3. The petitioners, who were the highest bidders in the auction held with respect to the respective Sand Ghats, in the circumstances, filed the writ petitions, C.W.J.C. Nos. 445 of 1995 and 1106 of 1995 respectively for the reliefs which have been mentioned at the outset. 3. The main plank of the petitioner's claim is that Rule 4 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (in short 'the Rules') prohibits mining operation in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of quarrying permit or mining lease, as the case may be, granted under the rules, and in terms of Rule 11A Sand can be settled only by public auction with the highest bidder subject to preferential rights of Government Departments. Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies and Cooperative Societies under Rule 12 where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department etc. If they fulfill the conditions required for the grant of mining lease but even then the procedure envisaged under Rule 9 has to be followed. The Rules, no doubt, contemplate reservation of certain area under Rule 5(2) or relaxation of terms and conditions under Rule 36 but the requirement of lease is not dispensed with. While reservation can be made only by notification and for the use of the Government, Local Bodies or for any other public or special purpose, the terms and conditions prescribed by the rules can be varied and relaxed only in public interest. It is also urged that the Collector is the only authority competent to permit any kind of mining operation. The Collector having held auction and approved the settlement in favour of the petitioners, as evident from letter of the District Mining Officer, Rohtas dated December 28, 1994, he was bound to grant lease. It is said that but for the aforementioned interim order dated December 26, 1994, and the order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 30, 1995 passed pursuant thereto, the lease would have been granted as by reason of acceptance of the offer made by the petitioners in the shape of bid a concluded contract would be deemed to have come into existence. 4. On behalf of the Corporation it has been contended that there is no fundamental right of trade in minerals. 4. On behalf of the Corporation it has been contended that there is no fundamental right of trade in minerals. The minerals have vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act the State as its absolute owner has unfettered right not to make any settlement and carry on the mining operations itself or not to permit any mining operation at all. According to the Corporation, the instant case is not one of settlement but entrustment of management of Sand Ghats in its favour on certain terms as stipulated in the order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 13, 1995, in exercise of executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. It is urged that entrustment of management is in public interest and the Court should not, therefore, interfere. 5. The plea of the Corporation regarding inherent or paramount right of the State has not been denied on behalf of the petitioners. It has, however, been contended that where Rules have been framed the power cannot be exercised except in accordance with rules. Heavy reliance has been placed on the provisions of Rule 4, which according to the counsel bars any kind of mining operation except under and in accordance with a quarrying permit or a mining lease, and Rule 11A which provides for settlement of sand of public auction with the highest bidder except in cases covered by Rule 12(1). 6. At this stage it would be useful to refer to the provisions of Rules 4 and 11A, so far as relevant, as hereunder :- "4. Prohibition of mining operation without permit or mining lease. - (1) No person shall undertake any mining operation in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying permit or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under these rules. 11A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the settlement of sand as minor mineral will be done by public auction by the Collector to the highest bidder on annual basis. Before the auction, the bidders shall produce royalty clearance certificate required under rule 9(4) or an affidavit to the effect that he is/was not a lessee or permit-holder and that he does not owe any mining dues. Before the auction, the bidders shall produce royalty clearance certificate required under rule 9(4) or an affidavit to the effect that he is/was not a lessee or permit-holder and that he does not owe any mining dues. Explanation.- Existing leases shall not be renewed nor fresh lease/permits for sand shall be granted : Provided that in isolated and far flung areas of sand deposits which reasonably and conveniently cannot be settled by auction shall be identified by the Collector and on their being approved as such by the Commissioner the competent officer may issue permits for removal of sand from such period not exceeding one year in respect of any one individual permit-holder: Provided further that such isolated and far flung areas can also be settled through public auction as and when so declared by the Commissioner : Provided further that anything contained hereinbefore in this rule shall not prevent the Collector from exercising his power U/R 9 in cases covered by rule 12(1) hereinafter. Rule 9 lays down the manner of making application and, read with Rules 10 and 11, the manner of granting ordinary mining leases - in contradistinction to the special procedure regarding sand as laid down under Rule 11A. Rule 12 is also relevant and may be quoted in its relevant part as follows:- 12. Preferential right for obtaining mining lease. - (1) In granting the mining lease, the Collector shall give preference to Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings of the State or Central Government, Local body, and Co-operative society where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department, undertaking or body, if they fulfil the conditions required for the grant of mining lease." 7. The argument of Mr. Shreenath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, is two-fold and runs as follows : Rule 4 creates absolute prohibition in the matter of any kind of mining operation except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying permit or mining lease granted under the rules. It include within its fold Government Department as well in view of the definition of the word "person" under Rule 2 (xi) of the Rules. It include within its fold Government Department as well in view of the definition of the word "person" under Rule 2 (xi) of the Rules. (It was pointed out that section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which is now applicable to minor minerals as well by reason of amendment of section 14 by Act 37 of 1986, is also to the same effect). This prohibition extends to even Government Departments. Except where land is reserved by notification for own use of the Government etc. under Rule 5(2), even Government Departments cannot undertake mining operation. And so far as sand is concerned, the same can be settled only by public auction with the highest bidders. The Government Departments are, no doubt, entitled to preference in the matter of grant of mining lease where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department which means that the requirement of settlement by public auction and mining lease is not dispensed with. 8. The first question for consideration is whether right of the State to carry on trade in minerals, that is to say, the right to do mining operation and deal in minerals itself is abrogated by Rule 4. On behalf of the Corporation our attention in this connection was drawn to the provisions of section 4(a) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, enacted for the transfer to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in, inter alia, mines and minerals, the relevant part of which runs as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract. . . . . . . . . the following consequences shall ensue and shall be deemed to have always ensued, namely : (a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietary or tenure-holder in any building or part of building comprised in such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure, and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazars, mela and ferries and all other sairati interests, as also his interest in all sub-soil including any rights in mines and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised, in such estate or tenure (other than the interests of raiyats or under-raiyats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interests in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the plea that by reason of vesting of the proprietor's/tenure-holder's interest in mines and minerals the State is the absolute owner of the same. It was, however, submitted, as indicated above, that exercise of inherent or paramount powers is subject to the rules. If the rules were not there the State would have been free to exercise the right in the manner it liked. The rules having been framed, it cannot be permitted to act contrary to the same giving a go-bye to it. 10. In my opinion, the Rules, would come into play only when the State decides to part with its right. In that case the dispensation would have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the mining operation cannot be carried out except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying permit or a mining lease, as the case may be granted under the Rules. The Rules are regulatory in nature. They cannot be construed as curbing or restricting the power of the State to carryon the trade or deal in mineral itself. Rule 4, in my opinion, should not be interpreted so as to make the vesting incomplete and ineffective. 11. Mr. Shreenath Singh laid great emphasis on the word "person" in Rule 4. The Rules are regulatory in nature. They cannot be construed as curbing or restricting the power of the State to carryon the trade or deal in mineral itself. Rule 4, in my opinion, should not be interpreted so as to make the vesting incomplete and ineffective. 11. Mr. Shreenath Singh laid great emphasis on the word "person" in Rule 4. It is true that the word has been given a wide meaning so as to include, amongst others, Government Departments as well. Mr. Ram Salak Mahto for the Corporation pointed out that the definition clause cannot be construed as substantive provisions of the statute. The correct meaning of the word has to be culled out from the context, scheme of the Act, language of the substantive provisions etc. Read in that light it appears to me that the Rules do envisage even Government Departments as lessees of mining lease. This is clear from the language of Rule 12(1) which opens with the words "in granting the mining lease". Thus, I am inclined to agree with the petitioners that even Government Department as a person cannot undertake mining operation except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of mining lease. But as I have opined above, the Rule would not stand in the way of State in winning the minerals itself. They would come into play only when some dispensation of mining right is to be made. 12. It is a matter of general knowledge that even the Government Department known as Works Departments, such as, Road, Building, Irrigation, Public Health Engineering Department require different kinds of minerals for work "directly concerned with the Department" in the matter of constructions of roads, buildings, barrages, dams, canals and so on. They are also, no doubt, work of the Government but a distinction has to be drawn between conduct of government business by Government Departments under Article 166 and exercise of executive power by the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution. Rule 5 of the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution provides that "the business of the Government shall be transacted in the departments specified in the First Schedule and shall be classified and distributed between those departments as laid down therein. Grant of prospecting licence, mineral leases and their renewal has been allocated to the Mines & Geology Department. Grant of prospecting licence, mineral leases and their renewal has been allocated to the Mines & Geology Department. Construction and maintenance of roads etc. is the function of the Road Construction Department. If the Road Department requires clay, stone or morrum for the above purpose it may buy the articles from market or apply for lease. But if the Government decides to trade in mineral in exercise of its inherent power it cannot be said that it should ask for a mining lease. It would be preposterous to say that the Mines Commissioner on behalf of the Government should apply for grant of mining lease before the Collector. 13. The correct legal position, according to me, appears to be that if a Government Department requires the minerals in connection with its own work it should apply for lease and in that case it would be entitled to preference under Rule 12 but if the Government decides to win the minerals and sell it in the market it would be doing so only in exercise of its executive power and inherent or paramount right. In that situation it would not be required to take any permit, licence or lease. In terms of Article 299 of the Constitution of India the executive power of the Union and the State extends to carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of the property and the making of contracts for any purpose. For the reasons stated above, in my view, Rule 4 does not abrogate the power of the State to win the mineral and sell the same in market. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed by Mr. Shreenath Singh on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) and Purtabpur Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner ( AIR 1970 SC 1896 ) is rather misplaced. In those cases it was held that where the power has been conferred on a particular authority by statute, the power has to be exercised by him alone and not by a superior authority. The principle laid down in those cases has no application in the instant case. 14. Mr. In those cases it was held that where the power has been conferred on a particular authority by statute, the power has to be exercised by him alone and not by a superior authority. The principle laid down in those cases has no application in the instant case. 14. Mr. Shiva Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 1106 of 1995, in addition to above-mentioned two cases also placed reliance on Sant Ram Sharma v. Union of India (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1910), Govt. of State of Bihar Vs. Ram Bharosa Singh (AIR 1956 Supreme Court 640). Baban Chaubey vs. State of Bihar ( 1989 BBCJ 313 ), Prasidh Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1976 PLJR 352), and Haji T. M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Karala State Financial Corporation (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 157). In Sant Ram Sharma's case it was held that in the absence of statutory rules it is open to the Government to issue administrative instruction and circulars laying down, say, principles of promotion. (I do not follow how that decision is relevant in the present case). In Ram Bharosa Singh's case the question for consideration was whether the State Govt. is competent to issue any direction to the District Magistrate, the licensing authority, to extend the period of lease under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. It was held, in agreement with the High Court, that in view of the provisions of rule 7(a) which lays down that the maximum period of lease shall not exceed three years at a time, it could not do so. In Prasidh Narayan Singh's case, the Additional Collector had made settlement of a cattle fair with a private person on the basis of representation although auction had been held in which the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner, had made the highest offer, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 7T of the Bihar land Reforms Rules, 1951. The dispute was thus inter se between the Gram Panchayat having preferential right on the one hand and the private individual on the other. The question of inherent or paramount right of the State to collect the tolls of the fair was not an issue. T. M. Hassan Rawther (supra) was a case of sale of a tea estate in default of payment of dues to the Kerala State Financial Corporation. The question of inherent or paramount right of the State to collect the tolls of the fair was not an issue. T. M. Hassan Rawther (supra) was a case of sale of a tea estate in default of payment of dues to the Kerala State Financial Corporation. The appellant made the highest offer but failed to pay the money. After negotiations failed, the Corporation approached the second highest tenderer and sold the property to a party of which second highest tenderer was a partner on the basis of negotiations. The Supreme Court held that ordinarily settlement or sale of largesse should be made by holding public auction or inviting tenders but there may be situations necessitating departure from the rule. The sale was held to be valid. Thus, both on facts and in principle the decisions cited by the counsel are not applicable to the present case. 15. Once the power of the State to carry on trade in mineral is conceded to it, it would logically follow that the State could either do it by itself departmentally or get it done through others, by appointing agents and entrusting management to it as it professes to have done in the instant case. 16. The question for consideration then is whether the plea of the State and the Corporation about entrustment of management is tenable on facts or not. In other words, whether the plea is a pretence or a camouflage for settlement in favour of the Corporation. In order to answer the said question it is necessary to refer to the relevant part of the impugned order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 13, 1995. 17. It appears that in the light of the aforementioned interim order dated December 23, 1994 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11382 of 1994 the Corporation made representation claiming preference in the matter of settlement of Sand Ghats under Rule 12 of the Rules. The above plea was rejected by the Mines Commissioner in these words:- "As far preferential treatment (sic) the Rule 12, the said Rule applies to such public undertakings of the State or Central Government etc. where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department or undertaking or body if they fulfil the condition required for grant of mining lease. where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department or undertaking or body if they fulfil the condition required for grant of mining lease. In this case the Corporation does not use sand for its own work but sells the same to the consumer. As far settlement of the Ghats is concerned, the Sand Ghats were never settled with BSMDC. The Corporation was entrusted with the management of those Ghats on behalf of the Government. The Accountant General, Bihar, has also made certain observations about the arrangement and the same is under consideration of the Government. When the management is entrusted to the Corporation normally the entire receipts should be deposited in Government revenue and the Corporation should be given such amount as may be considered appropriate for having done the work. As such, the matter prior to 31.12.94 is still under consideration and a separate order is being issued." After having rejected the prayer for settlement the Mines Commissioner passed the following order : "As far the settlement of Ghats for the year, 1995, after having considered the fact that if the management is entrusted to the Corporation, the Corporation will also be benefited, it is ordered that the management of the Ghats which were managed by BSMDC during 1994 be entrusted to BSMDC on the following conditions for year 1995 : (1) Royalty at current rate or the maximum bid amount quoted where auctions have been held whichever is higher will be payable by the Corporation. (2) The Corporation will submit monthly returns and ensure payment on monthly basis. (3) Any increase in price of sand will require prior approval of Government. (4) The Corporation will not sub-let or transfer the right, title or interest or make arrangement without prior approval of the Government. (5) Transport Challans, index symbols and numbers will be issued by the Corporation to several Ghats under prior intimation to the concerned Mining officer. (6) The period of management will be from 1.1.95 to 31.12.95. (7) The Net Profit will be shared at the following rates:- Gross receipts - royalty to Govt. sales tax to Govt. - other taxes or legal expenses - collection charges (Administrative expense) will be equal to NET PROFIT and in the NET PROFIT the share of the Government will be 50 per cent and the Corporation will be 50 per cent. sales tax to Govt. - other taxes or legal expenses - collection charges (Administrative expense) will be equal to NET PROFIT and in the NET PROFIT the share of the Government will be 50 per cent and the Corporation will be 50 per cent. (8) The Corporation will submit final account for the year ending 31.12.95 by 31.1.96 and full payment as per the account will be made by 29th February 1996. (9) The BSMDC may start work under prior intimation to Government in any area transgressed or regressed by Sone river in Patna or Bhojpur district. (10) Unauthorised removal or illegal mining in their area will be the prime responsibility of the BSMDC and they will report matter to the Government agency without delay. (11) All authorised and competent officer of Government will be provided facilities of checking of records and account book. (12) Opening and closing of Ghats will be intimated to Government agencies. (13) All directions to be issued by the Government from time to time in furtherance of aforesaid terms and conditions will be binding on the BSMDC. (14) The Corporation will not create any permanent establishment for the above work and the Government will not be responsible for any compensation by way of loss or any other expenditure. (15) Any violation of these conditions will attract appropriate action by Government." 18. Mr. Ram Salak Mahto argued with emphasis that the order (marked Annexure-11 in C.W.J.C. 445 of 1995) cannot be read as a document of lease. According to him, it is an order issued in exercise of executive powers, a document of authorisation. In support of the argument counsel took pains to point out that apart from the fact that the document, in terms, merely entrusts the management of Ghats to the Corporation, the terms and conditions of the entrustment are also such as to exclude the document from being lease document. It was pointed out that in the case of ordinary mining lease after paying the amount of royalty at the current rate in the case of ordinary settlement under Rule 9 or the amount of action in the case of settlement by auction under Rule 11A (vide Item no. It was pointed out that in the case of ordinary mining lease after paying the amount of royalty at the current rate in the case of ordinary settlement under Rule 9 or the amount of action in the case of settlement by auction under Rule 11A (vide Item no. 4 of Schedule II to the Rules) and the taxes, the lessee is entitled to appropriate the balance amount of sale proceeds but in the present case the Corporation has to submit monthly returns, deposit the entire amount of royalty on monthly basis and share the net profit with the Government on 50-50 basis in the manner laid down in clause 7 i.e. after deducting the amount of royalty at the current rate of Rs. 18/- per cubic metre or the maximum bid amount - whichever is higher -, sales tax and other taxes, legal expenses and collection charges from the gross sale proceeds. Counsel pointed out that if the amount of royalty at the current rate of Rs. 18/- per cubic metre which the Corporation has been able to realise from the customers is lesser than the maximum bid amount, it has to make good the balance from other sources, a condition peculiar to the present arrangement and alien to the concept of mining lease. It was also pointed out that in the absence of any price control a mining lessee is free to charge any price from the customers but in the present case, vide clause 3, he cannot charge a higher price than the one fixed by the State Government without its prior approval. Also, restrictions have been put on the right of the Corporation to sub-let or transfer its right or interest or making any arrangement without prior approval of the Government. 19. The submissions of the counsel, in my opinion, are well founded. The terms and conditions hardly leave any room for doubt about the nature of the document. The plea of the State and the Corporation that by order dated January 13, 1995 no lease was created and what has been done is to entrust the management of Sand Ghats in question to the Corporation does not appear to be a camouflage, a device to make settlement in its favour by oblique or indirect method. 20. The plea of the State and the Corporation that by order dated January 13, 1995 no lease was created and what has been done is to entrust the management of Sand Ghats in question to the Corporation does not appear to be a camouflage, a device to make settlement in its favour by oblique or indirect method. 20. It is the specific case of the Slate and the Corporation that in the past also the management of these Ghats had been entrusted to the Corporation which had come in for indictment by the Accountant General, so far as the terms of the entrustment are concerned. As stated by the Mines Commissioner in his order (portion quoted above), the Accountant General took the view that in the case of entrustment of management normally the entire receipts should be deposited in Government revenue and the party should be given such amount as may be considered appropriate for having done the work as collection charges. It may be stated here that earlier the Corporation was merely depositing the amount of royalty plus taxes etc. as any ordinary mining lessee was supposed to do. The above arrangement has now been modified by providing that the entire amount of royalty at the current rate i.e. Rs. 18/- per cubic metre is to be deposited on monthly basis along with the returns and after making deductions in the manner specified in clause 7, the profit is to be shared by the two. In addition, in order to protect the interest of the State it has further been stipulated that if the receipts fall short of the highest bid amount quoted in the auction (where auctions were held) the Corporation will have to pay the balance amount from other sources. I have no hesitation in holding on these facts that the arrangement envisaged in the impugned order is intended to protect and serve the interest of the State in a better manner serving at the same time the interest of the Corporation as well and, therefore, is in public interest. 21. Mr. I have no hesitation in holding on these facts that the arrangement envisaged in the impugned order is intended to protect and serve the interest of the State in a better manner serving at the same time the interest of the Corporation as well and, therefore, is in public interest. 21. Mr. Shreenath Singh also argued that by reason of acceptance of the bid, which is in the nature of offer, a concluded contract must be deemed to have come into existence as held by the Supreme Court in Harshankar v. State of Punjab (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1121) and in the ordinary course the Parwana would have been granted to the petitioner for winning the minerals but for the interim order passed by this Court on December 23, 1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 11382 of 1994 and the order of the Mines Commissioner passed pursuant thereto. He submitted that having regard to the scheme envisaged in the Rules the power of granting mining lease etc. vests in the Collector of the district and, therefore, this Court rather went stray in permitting the Mines Commissioner to entertain the representation of the Corporation. He alternatively submitted that by reason of the said interim order it is the Mines Commissioner who was authorised to consider the matter and so far he is concerned, he took a view favourable to the petitioners. The impugned order dated January 13, 1995 is a result of the interference by the Minister Incharge which must be held to be unwarranted and illegal. 22. The legal position in regard to creation of contract on acceptance of the bid cannot be disputed. However, that in my opinion, is not sufficient for granting any relief to the petitioners. Firstly, no person can claim fundamental right of trading in minerals and secondly, in the ultimate analysis, the State having decided not to make any settlement and to win the minerals itself through the Corporation by entrusting the management of Sand Ghats to it, what is to be examined is the validity of the said State action. It is true that in terms of the interim order of this Court it is the Mines Commissioner who had to decide the representation and the Minister Incharge did not come in the picture. The Mines Commissioner however in his wisdom placed the matter before the Minister Incharge. It is true that in terms of the interim order of this Court it is the Mines Commissioner who had to decide the representation and the Minister Incharge did not come in the picture. The Mines Commissioner however in his wisdom placed the matter before the Minister Incharge. The view of the Minister and the final order of the Mines Commissioner issued in that light are certainly at variance with the view expressed by Mines Commissioner in his notes dated January 10, 1995 but that cannot be said to be end-all of the matter. The impugned order cannot be faulted on that ground alone. Having already examined the validity of the impugned order and upheld the same, I cannot but reject the above submissions of the counsel for the petitioners. 23. Before I conclude, I would like to refer to an unreported Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1191, 1190 and 1175 of 1992 disposed of on March 11, 1992, on which heavy reliance was placed by the counsel for both the State and the Corporation. In that case public auction had been held for settlement of Sand Ghats in the district of Patna. The bid offered by the petitioner was accepted and they deposited 50% of the bid amount etc. A provisional Parwana in token of settlement of the Ghats was also issued for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1992 i.e. for one year. Soon thereafter, the State Government took a policy decision to the effect that the Sand Ghats shall not be settled by public auction and the sand shall be excavated departmentally. The challenge to the above decision of the State Government and the consequential order was rejected by this Court, inter alia on the ground that the State Government was competent to win the minerals itself through departmental agencies and the decision of the State Government was in public interest. The correctness of the decision was sought to be challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground, inter alia, that the decision was rendered in ignorance of the provisions of Rule 4. That aspect of the matter has already been discussed by me above. The correctness of the decision was sought to be challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground, inter alia, that the decision was rendered in ignorance of the provisions of Rule 4. That aspect of the matter has already been discussed by me above. Although the facts of the above cited cases were somewhat different, the ultimate finding of the Court about the competency of the State Government to win the mineral in exercise of its inherent powers in public interest does lend support to the view which I have taken in these cases. 24. Having thus considered the matter, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioners. C.W.J.C. Nos. 445 of 1995 and 1106 of 1995 are accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. C.W.J.C. No. 11382 of 1994 is also dismissed but as being infructuous. There will be no order as to cost. S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - I agree.