Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 22 (PAT)

Pradeep Kumar Joshi v. State Of Bihar

2014-01-06

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : Petitioner has filed this writ application to quash the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the respondent Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No.27/06 rejecting prayer of the petitioner to exempt him from payment of royalty of the sand ghat settled with him, proportionately for the period 1.1.2004 to 10.2.2004, during which period he could not operate the sand ghat on account of the fact that the work order was issued to him only on 10.2.2004. His further prayer is to quash the Certificate Case no.1105 of 2004-05 initiated for realization of the due royalty amount of Rs.10,44,802/-. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 29.11.2003 an advertisement, vide Annexure-1, was issued by the District Mining Officer, Rohtas, in newspaper for settlement of various sand-ghats on annual basis. As per the advertisement, bids were to be held on 12.12.2003, failing which, on 15.12.2003, and failing that also, on 19.12.2003. The settlements were to be made for the calendar year 2004, i.e. for the period from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004. However, bids were actually held on 24.1.2004 in which the petitioner participated for Chainpur, Berkup and Hurka Mauza sand-ghat and his bid of Rs.38,51,000/- was found to be highest and was accepted. Hence petitioner deposited security money of Rs.3,30,000/- on that day itself in the office of Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas and deposited Rs.10,59,810/- thereafter, and also requested the Assistant Mining Officer to adjust a total sum of Rs.8,21,000/-, deposited by him in another bid for Amiyawar sand ghat, which was not awarded to him. It is stated in the petition that this information was given to the Assistant Mining Officer by the petitioner on 10.2.2004, vide Annexure-2, and on that very day provisional work order was issued to him, vide Annexure-3. However, later on, a demand was made from the petitioner for deposit of due amount upon which he made a request for rebate for the period 1.1.2004 to 10.2.2004. He thereafter filed revision under Section 45 of Bihar Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1972, before the Commissioner for the purpose which was initially dismissed for default on 12.2.2006. Hence, he filed fresh revision which was numbered as 27/06, and was heard and finally dismissed by the Mines Commissioner by impugned order dated 29.3.2007, vide Annexure-4. He thereafter filed revision under Section 45 of Bihar Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1972, before the Commissioner for the purpose which was initially dismissed for default on 12.2.2006. Hence, he filed fresh revision which was numbered as 27/06, and was heard and finally dismissed by the Mines Commissioner by impugned order dated 29.3.2007, vide Annexure-4. In the meanwhile, a requisition was sent by the Assistant Mining Officer to the Circle Officer for realization of due settlement amount to the tune of Rs.10,44,802/- from the petitioner which was registered as Certificate Case No.1105/04-05. and notice was issued. A copy of the said notice has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-5. 3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner was that advertisement laid down that in any case the bid was to be held by 19.12.2003, as the settlement had to be made for the calendar year 2004 i.e. for the period commencing from 1.1.2004. However, there was laches on the part of the authorities in holding the bid in time, which was held only on 24.1.2004 and the work order was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2004. Hence, petitioner was entitled for rebate in the settlement amount proportionately for this period. He further submitted that certificate proceeding was premature as revision of the petitioner was pending before the Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an order of this Court in the case of Lodipur Shramik Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2004(4) PLJR 709 ], and in particular on paragraph 12 thereof, to submit that, if the required amount for issue of work order was allowed to be deposited by the petitioner on 10.02.2004 and then only the work order was issued, the respondents could not take the stand that the work order was issued to the petitioner due to his laches. In the circumstances, he submitted that, in terms of the said orders of this Court, in the present case also, this Court should direct the respondents to allow rebate to him in the settlement amount proportionately for the period he could not operate. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this case. In the circumstances, he submitted that, in terms of the said orders of this Court, in the present case also, this Court should direct the respondents to allow rebate to him in the settlement amount proportionately for the period he could not operate. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this case. Referring to the pleadings to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, it is true that in the advertisement the last date for holding bids was fixed on 19.12.2003. However, due to unavoidable reasons, it could not be held and it was held on 24.1.2004. He submitted that in clause 17 of the advertisement it was specifically laid down that in case a successful bidder did not get the work order by 1.1.2004, no claim on this ground was maintainable. He further submitted that, in terms of clause 12 of the advertisement, if the highest bid in the auction was more than Rs.50 thousand, the successful bidder was required to deposit 50% of his bid amount by the next working day and rest of the 50%, in two equal installments to be deposited by 15th of April, 2004 and 15th of July, 2004. He submitted that though petitioner did submit the security money, in terms of clause 8 of the advertisement, but he did not deposit 50% of the bid amount on the next working day. In fact, he, for the first time applied with his request of adjustment of his deposit in another bid only on 10.2.2004 and on the same very day work order was issued to him. He submitted that, therefore, there was no laches on the part of the respondents in issuing work order to the petitioner late and in fact petitioner was himself responsible for the delay. He further submitted that the petitioner having not deposited rest of the settlement amount, certificate proceeding was initiated against him after which only he filed the revision before the Mines Commissioner. 6. It is not disputed that the auction, held by the respondents for settlement of the sand ghats, was to be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. 6. It is not disputed that the auction, held by the respondents for settlement of the sand ghats, was to be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. Clause 8 of the advertisement provided that the highest bidder had to deposit 10% of the bid amount as security money immediately after the closure of the auction, which was to be adjusted in the settlement amount after completion of the period of settlement. Clause 12 of the advertisement provided that in case the bid amount was more than Rs.50 thousand, the highest bidder had to deposit 50% of the bid amount by the next working day, and the rest of 50%, in two equal installments, to be deposited by 15th of April, 2004 and 15th of July, 2004. The advertisement did provide that auction was to be held on 12.12.2003 or 15.12.2003 or 19.12.2003, latest. However, clause 17 did contain the provision that, if for any reason, the settlee did not get the work order by 1.1.2004, no claim whatsoever was entertainable on this count. Hence, merely on the ground that the auction was not held by 31.12.2003 and the petitioner did not get the work order by that date and the auction was held on 24.1.2004, no claim, whatsoever, of the petitioner could be entertained in terms of said clause 17 of the advertisement. In fact petitioner had participated in the auction on 24.1.2004 with open eyes without any grumble. Now coming to the delay part, in issuing the work order on 10.2.2004 in spite of auction having been held on 24.1.2004, this Court finds that in clause 12 of the advertisement it was specifically provided that, in an auction, in which amount of bid was more than Rs.50 thousand the highest bidder was required to deposit 50% of the settlement amount by the next working day. The highest bid of the petitioner in the auction for the sand-ghat in question was Rs.38,51,000/-. Hence, in terms of said clause of the advertisement, petitioner was required to deposit 50% of this amount by the next working day. It is admitted position that he did not do that. He defaulted in complying with this condition. The highest bid of the petitioner in the auction for the sand-ghat in question was Rs.38,51,000/-. Hence, in terms of said clause of the advertisement, petitioner was required to deposit 50% of this amount by the next working day. It is admitted position that he did not do that. He defaulted in complying with this condition. As per his own pleading in paragraph 8 of the writ application, he deposited only Rs.10,59,810/- besides the security deposit of Rs.3,30,000/- and made a request for adjustment of his deposit in another bid towards the 50% of the settlement money of this bid. It is specifically stated in the paragraph, and letter has also been annexed with the writ application, as Annexure-2, that he made a request for adjustment to the Assistant Mining Officer only on 10.02.2004 which was obviously accepted and provisional work order was issued to him on that very day. This clearly shows that laches was on the part of the petitioner himself which resulted into delay in issue of work order to him. 7. From the notice of the certificate proceeding it appears that the same was initiated against the petitioner immediately after the settlement was over and settlement amount remained due against him. Thereafter, he filed his revision before the Mines Commissioner which was numbered as Revision Case No.2/05. Hence, this is also not correct to say that, after filing of the revision, the certificate case was initiated. Besides statements made in paragraph 11 of the writ application shows that his Revision Case No.2/05 stood dismissed for default on 12.2.2006. Thereafter, he filed a fresh revision application, which was registered as a new case. The order of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner. From paragraph 12 of the order, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, itself it is clear that by specific letter, Assistant Mining Officer in that case had allowed the writ petitioner to deposit balance amount by 31st of August, 2002 which the petitioner had done. Hence, the Court found that the respondents were not justified in canceling the settlement on the ground that the writ petitioner had not deposited the balance settlement amount by 31st of July, 2002 as required by the terms of the original settlement. Hence, the Court found that the respondents were not justified in canceling the settlement on the ground that the writ petitioner had not deposited the balance settlement amount by 31st of July, 2002 as required by the terms of the original settlement. In the present case, no such permission/liberty, granted by the respondents to the petitioner, has been brought on record. On the other hand, after the bid of the petitioner was accepted and after initial deposits, his first letter to the Assistant Mining Officer is of 10.2.2004, requesting for adjustment of the amount of his deposit in another bid which was accepted on that very day and the provisional work order was issued. In the circumstances, this Court finds that, in fact, laches was on the part of the petitioner himself which occasioned delay in issuing of the work order. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the present writ application. 8. As a result, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed.