Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 579 (KAR)

RAJASHEKAR BANAVASE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-07-21

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2003
D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims that he was the successful bidder in an auction that was conducted by the office of the Senior Geologist at Hassan, the second respondent for excavating sand in S. Nos. 118 and 119 measuring an extent of 1-20 acres of Doddanaagur village, Saklespur Taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that his highest bid of Rs. 11,000/- in the auction held on 29-11-2002 had been accepted and that the petitioner paid the amount on the same day and got the right to excavate or remove sand from this extent of land. The petitioner, by making payment, has got such right for a period of one year, is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, petitioner has approached this Court complaining that even before the expiry of the period of one year,the second respondent, at the instance of some third persons, has cancelled the auction in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that he has not complied with some procedural requirement for the execution of the lease deed in his favour. It is this endorsement dated 27-8-2002 cancelling the acceptance of the petitioner's bid that has given cause for the petitioner to approach this Court. ( 3 ) IT is urged that the petitioner was never aware of the requirements that were to be complied on his part; that after payment of the sum of Rs. 11,000/- for the year, the petitioner has started excavating sand and subsequent to the passing of the order under Annexure-B, he has been prevented and as such he is now constrained to approach this Court for relief. ( 4 ) SRI Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity before the impugned order came to be passed; that it is in contravention of the terms of the lease which permits him to excavate sand for a period of one year on payment of sum of Rs. 11,000/- which he has paid, and for no fault of the petitioner, that the second respondent has prevented him from excavating sand which has resulted in loss to the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not excavate sand for a period of three months and he has suffered loss. 11,000/- which he has paid, and for no fault of the petitioner, that the second respondent has prevented him from excavating sand which has resulted in loss to the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not excavate sand for a period of three months and he has suffered loss. ( 5 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is inter alia sought to be urged that the petitioner was required to get the lease deed executed in pursuance of the option as is required under Rule 30 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 ('the Rules' for short ). It was the duty of the petitioner to have got the lease deed executed in Form-E within three months from the order granting the lease or accepting the bid in his favour; that though several notices had been issued to the petitioner as per reminders dated 19-12-2001, 23-1-2002, 8-2-2002 and a Final notice dated 14-3-2002, the petitioner never responded and as such the acceptance of the bid of allotment in favour of the petitioner is cancelled and the action on the part of the second respondent is sought to be justified inasmuch as the petitioner himself had given cause for the same. It is pointed out that failure on the part of the petitioner to get the lease executed as contemplated under Rule 30 of the Rules and Form-E that has resulted in the impugned communication at Annexure-B. It is also pointed out that the period of the year having expired, there is no question of granting any relief to the petitioner and that the petitioner having approached this Court without availing alternative remedy of representation before the Director of Mines and Geology, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) SRI Puttasiddaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents has reiterated the contentions raised in the statement of objections and points out that Rule 30 of the Rules envisages that a grantee who has been awarded a lease shall have the lease deed executed in Form-E within three months from the date of grant of lease and the petitioner having not done so,there was no alternative except to cancel the bid and forfeit the amount in favour of the State. ( 7 ) ON a perusal of Rule 27 and Rule 30 of the Rules, it does not indicate as to in what manner a person in whose favour a lease is granted is required to get it executed. Rules 27 and 30 of the Rules read as under :-"27. Notification of grant of lease :- The Competent Authority may, having regard to the provisions of these rules and, after making such enquiries as it deems fit, grant or refuse to grant or renew a quarrying lease. Where a lease is granted or renewed, the Competent Authority shall issue a notification in FORM-GL. 30. Execution of lease deed :- (1) When a quarrying lease is granted or renewed under rule 27, a lease deed shall be got executed by the grantee in FORM-E within three months of the order granting or renewing lease, failing which the Competent authority shall communicate to the grantee the cancellation of the order made under rule 27. (2) Before executing lease deed the grantee shall pay in advance fifty per cent of the dead rent payable during the first year. (3) The Competent authority shall forward to the Director and concerned Tahsildar one copy of the quarrying lease deed as soon as the lease deed is executed. ( 8 ) THE obvious requirement on the part of the person whose bid is accepted is of depositing the amount. It is not in dispute in this case that the petitioner deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 11,000/- on the very day when the lease rights were auctioned. It is not known what other requirements were to have been complied with by the petitioner thereafter. It is neither made explicit in the Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of Form-E does not clearly indicate as to what is the requirement on the part of the person in whose favour lease is granted. It only spells the terms and conditions of the lease and it is executed by the Lessor "state" in the name of the Governor or with authority acting on the authorisation of the Government. No specific requirement is indicated which is required to be complied with on the part of the lessee. It only spells the terms and conditions of the lease and it is executed by the Lessor "state" in the name of the Governor or with authority acting on the authorisation of the Government. No specific requirement is indicated which is required to be complied with on the part of the lessee. ( 9 ) IT is obvious that the authorities though had not executed a lease in favour of the petitioner, nevertheless did not prevent the petitioner from exercising his right to excavate sand from the area after he paid the sum of Rs. 11,000/ -. If at all, it should be said that there was inaction on the part of the respondents in not executing the lease deed in Form-E after receipt of a sum of Rs. 11,000/- and in not preventing the petitioner from excavating the sand in the absence of a valid lease deed executed in his favour. In either event, the respondents are at default. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner did call at the office of the respondent on many occasions, he was sent off on one pretext or the other; that the respondent, particularly second respondent, did not evince any interest in executing the lease deed as contemplated under Rule 30 of the Rules. Learned Counsel also asserts that the petitioner also did not receive any notice prior to the endorsement at Annexure-B. It is obvious that though nothing else was required to be complied on the part of the petitioner, he has been unduly harassed and made to run from pillar to post. The petition averments indicate that the second respondent has indulged in such adverse action at the instance of three persons inimical to the petitioner and caused loss and injury to the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the endorsement at Annexure-B cannot be sustained as it is obviously an act of misuse of the powers on the part of the second respondent. The power vested in a public authority should be used for bona fide purposes and in furtherance of public interest. The petitioner's only requirement pursuant to the bid was to deposit the sum of Rs. 11,000/-, which in fact the petitioner had deposited and nothing else was required to be complied on his part. The power vested in a public authority should be used for bona fide purposes and in furtherance of public interest. The petitioner's only requirement pursuant to the bid was to deposit the sum of Rs. 11,000/-, which in fact the petitioner had deposited and nothing else was required to be complied on his part. It was the duty of the authorities to get the lease deed executed as required under law. The mala fide action on the part of the second respondent has also caused loss to the petitioner. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prevented from excavating sand for a period of three months from out of the total duration of twelve months. It is proper that he is duly compensated. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 27-8-2002 passed by the second respondent in No. 3/2002-03/2783 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari and it is further directed that the petitioner is entitled for refund of 1/4th of the amount of Rs. 11000/-, i. e. , a sum of Rs. 2750/ -. ( 13 ) THE second respondent having acted in a manner not befitting his status of an official of State and having caused such loss to the State, it is only proper that he is made personally liable for making good this amount. The amount should be paid by the State in the first instance and recover the same from the second respondent, the person who has passed the order under Annexure-B at the relevant time. ( 14 ) RULE issued and made absolute. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .