Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 25 (JHR)

Abhai Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-01-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the settlement of Balu Ghats of Ranchi District made in favour of respondent No. 3, namely, Jharkhand (Bihar) State Mining Development Corporation for the period 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2001 and further for direction to the respondent No. 2 to settle the same with the petitioner who stood as highest bidder in the auction held on 19.12.2000. 2. Petitioners case is that on 28.11.2000 by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, a notice was advertised in the newspaper for auction of Balu Ghats of Ranchi District. A copy of the notice dated 28.11.2000 and the advertisement published in the newspaper have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. One of the condition in the aforesaid notification was that if the bidders desire to take the auction of all the Balu Ghats of Ranchi District collectively, then all units of Balu Ghats lying under the Ranchi District shall be auctioned as a single unit and for that the minimum amount for the auction was fixed at Rs. 66,53,130.00. Petitioners further case is that as per notification bid was held on 19.12,2000 treating all the units as a single unit and the petitioner stood as highest bidder among all the persons participated in the auction. The highest amount of the bid came to Rs. 85,00,000/- which was made by the petitioner. It is stated that on confidential information petitioner came to know that the Deputy Commissioner is going to settle the Balu Ghats in favour of respondent No. 3, Bihar State Mining Development Corporation, herein after referred to as the Corporation, on the basis of circular dated 20.12.1999 issued by Mining Department. A copy of the circular dated 20.12.1999 has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Immediately after the information petitioner said to have filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi expressing his readiness to take settlement of the higher amount than the proposed amount on which the Deputy Commissioner is going to settle the Ghats with the Corporation. 3. Immediately after the information petitioner said to have filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi expressing his readiness to take settlement of the higher amount than the proposed amount on which the Deputy Commissioner is going to settle the Ghats with the Corporation. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi stating inter alia that the settlement of the sand ghats as minor mineral is done by public auction according to the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules and also circulars and the guidelines time to time issued by the State Government. It is stated that process of settlement of twenty three sand ghats was initiated by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi and several applications along with requisite security drafts were received in the office from the interested applicants for participating in the proposed auction of ghats of sand. Auction was scheduled to be held on different dates and all the applications were examined. After examination, it was found that there were only eight sand ghats for which three-four bidders wanted to participate in the auction. It was also found that there were six sand ghats, for which one bidder in each ghat was interested to take part in the auction and for the rest nine sand ghats, no bidder was interested /available for taking part in auction. Petitioner and respondent No. 3, the Corporation were interested for taking settlement of the ghats treating the entire district as one unit. In such circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi decided to conduct auction both ghatwise as well as treating all the sand ghats as one unit in order to assess the potentiality of getting maximum revenue either side. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that against the auction of all the sand ghats treating these as one unit, four bidders participated in the auction including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was highest bidder with Rs. 85,00,000/-. On 20.12.2000 the Corporation made an offer that if wanted to take all the sand ghats of Ranchi district on settlement at Rs. 93,72,172/- which is 10% higher than the highest bid. Since, the Corporation had not participated in ghatwise auction and Rs. 85,00,000/-. On 20.12.2000 the Corporation made an offer that if wanted to take all the sand ghats of Ranchi district on settlement at Rs. 93,72,172/- which is 10% higher than the highest bid. Since, the Corporation had not participated in ghatwise auction and Rs. 85,20,156/- i.e. highest bid amount (jointly and collectively) was higher than the bid amount offered by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 decided to settle all the 23 sand ghats in favour of the Corporation. It is further stated that settlement of all the sand ghats of Ranchi district in favour respondent No. 3, Corporation, is fully justified and is in accordance with law and guidelines framed by the State Government (Annexure 3). 4. A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 reiterating the same facts as stated in the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2. It is stated that as the highest bid in respect of 23 ghats was Rs. 85,20,156/-, Corporation offered 10% higher than the aforesaid amount. As the offer was acceptable to respondent No. 2, the said 23 sand ghats have been settled separately in favour of the Corporation. 5. Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned settlement in favour of the respondent No. 3, as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly contended with the circular dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure 3) was in existence on the day when notifications were issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the auction was advertised in the newspaper but nothing was whispered in the said resolution regarding any preferential right to be given to any Cooperative Society or Mining Development Corporation. Learned counsel submitted that the process of settlement has not been done as per the procedure prescribed in the Minor Mineral Settlement Rules, 1972. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 3, Corporation cannot claim preferential right under the Rule 12(1) of the said Rules and therefore, procedure provided under Rule 11(A) should have been followed by respondent No. 2 while making settlement of sand ghats. 6. Before appreciating the submissions of learned counsel, it would be proper to look into the relevant provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred as the Rules. 6. Before appreciating the submissions of learned counsel, it would be proper to look into the relevant provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred as the Rules. Rule 11(A) of the said Rules reads as under : "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. 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 areas for such period not exceedings 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 herein before in this rule shall not prevent the Collector from exercising his power Under Rule 9 in cases covered by Rule 12(1) hereinafter." 7. It if also worth to quote Rule 12 of the said Rules, which reads as under : "Preferential right for obtaining mining lease,--(1) In granting the mining lease, the Collector shall give preference to Government Department, Public Sector Undertakings of the State or Central Governments, Local Body, (and Co- operative Society) where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department undertaking or body, if they fulfill the conditions required for the grant of mining lease. However, the Collector may give preference to such Co- operative Society, all the members/share-holders of which belong to (Schedule Tribe or Schedule Caste) and which has duly been registered under Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. However, the Collector may give preference to such Co- operative Society, all the members/share-holders of which belong to (Schedule Tribe or Schedule Caste) and which has duly been registered under Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. (2) Subject to the provisions if Rule 12(1), where two or more persons have applied for mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the lease over the applicant whose application was received later : Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the Collector, after taking into consideration the matters specified in Sub-rule (3), may grant mining lease to such one of the applicants as he may deem fit. (3) The matters referred to in the proviso above shall be the following namely: (a) The experience of the applicants in quarrying business; (b) Financial soundness and stability of the applicant; (c) The end use of the mineral by the applicant; (d) Any other matter which the Government may prescribe. (4) No applicant shall claim any priority by reason only of the fact that he had previously worked in the area to which the application relates. (5) In the case of application for mining lease filed prior to the commencement of these rules and pending after such commencement priority will remain unaltered provided the applicant complies with the requirement of these rules within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a requisition on this behalf by the Competent Officer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (2) the Collector may, for any special reasons to be recorded and with the previous approval of the Government, grant a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier." 8. From reading of aforesaid two provisions it is manifest that ordinarily settlement of sand as minor mineral will be done by public auction to the highest bidder on annual basis. However, preferential right has to been given to the Government Department, Public Section Undertakings and Local Bodies, subject to certain conditions. In this connection. Government issued a circular dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure 3) laying down certain conditions while giving preferential right to such Government Departments and other Government Undertakings. However, preferential right has to been given to the Government Department, Public Section Undertakings and Local Bodies, subject to certain conditions. In this connection. Government issued a circular dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure 3) laying down certain conditions while giving preferential right to such Government Departments and other Government Undertakings. The circular inter alia provides that if the Government Department offers 10% in addition to the highest bid amount then settlement can be done by Collector in favour of said department. It has been categorically stated in the counter- affidavit filed by the Collector that respondent-Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation made an offer vide its letter dated 20.12.2000, that it wanted to take all the sand ghats or Ranchi District on settlement at 10% higher than the highest bid amount. The offer of Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation was accepted by the Collector and strictly in accordance with the procedure provided in the Rules couples with circular issued by the State Government, settlement was made in favour of Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Ram and Shyam v. State of Haryana, and submitted that before settlement of the sand ghats in favour of respondent, opportunity should have been given to the petitioner who was the highest bidder. In my opinion, the said decision will not apply in the present case for the reason that in the case before the Apex Court, a lease was granted in favour of the highest bidder and thereafter the Government refused to confirm the same and granted a lease in favour of another person who had offered some more money on the order of the Chief Minister, In the instant case, although petitioner was found to be highest bidder but no lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, rather on the offer made by Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation in accordance with the Rules and the circular the ghats were settled in its favour. In the case of Satya Murmu v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 147 , a Division Bench while considering the aforementioned Rules has observed that : "Rule 11-A, which requires that settlement of sand as minor mineral shall be done by public auction, is intended to fetch the highest amount which the Government can get for settlement of sand. In the case of Satya Murmu v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 147 , a Division Bench while considering the aforementioned Rules has observed that : "Rule 11-A, which requires that settlement of sand as minor mineral shall be done by public auction, is intended to fetch the highest amount which the Government can get for settlement of sand. The highest bidder does have a claim to get the settlement. At the same time, a Co-operative Society under Rule 11-C claim a preferential treatment, but even in the matter of grant of preference all Co-operative Societies must be similarly treated. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that while holding an auction, whether for all or limited to Cooperative Societies, the notice must inform all those eligible to take part in the auction to be held on the date specified." 10. As noticed above, in the auction, the petitioner was the highest bidder but before granting lease in favour of the petitioner, the Collector in terms of the mandatory provisions, of the rules and the circular accepted the offer of the Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation for deposit of 10% excess amount in addition to the bid amount and decided to make settlement in favour of the Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation. In my opinion, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Collector in making settlement of sand ghats in favour of the Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation. I am further of the view that merely because petitioner was the highest bidder, no legal right has been created and the authority is not bound to grant settlement of sand ghats in favour of the petitioner. 11. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of settlement of sand ghats, made by the Collector in favour of Bihar (Jharkhand) State Mining Development Corporation. There is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 12. Writ petition dismissed.