Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 956 (MP)

SHAKTI TRADERS v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-09-09

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV

body2015
ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. Although this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief claimed is of refund of security amount deposited by the petitioner being sum of Rs. 1,12,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 12.06.2015 till the date of actual payment. 2. The petitioner in response to the auction notice participated in the bidding process. The condition in the auction notice unambiguously provides that the highest bidder must obtain environmental clearance certificate from the appropriate/competent Authority, which is made condition precedent for execution of the agreement. 3. The petitioner, no doubt, submitted application for grant of such permission, but, it was before the State Authority, who in turn informed the petitioner that the application can be processed only by the Central Authority in view of the category of land to be allotted/granted to the petitioner for the purpose of mining. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not resorted to that option. Instead, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition after making unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Authority to refund the security amount deposited by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is relying on Clause 6 of additional conditions specified in the auction notice. The same reads thus:- ^^6- ;fn fdlh [knku esa fl;k }kjk i;kZoj.k laca/kh vuqefr ugha nh tkrh gS rc lQy cksyhnkj }kjk tek jkf'k dks 15 fnol esa okfil fd;k tk;sxkA uksV%& --------------^^ 6. On a bare reading of this condition it is amply clear that the petitioner would be entitled for the refund of the security deposit amount within 15 days if the Authority was to reject the request for issuance of environmental clearance certificate. The petitioner, as aforesaid, had approached the said Authority (SEIAA) which in turn vide order dated 09.06.2015 informed the petitioner to approach the Central Authority for the said relief, being the Competent Authority in that behalf. This, the petitioner is construing as rejection of permission by State Authority (SEIAA) entitling the petitioner for refund of the security deposit amount in terms of Clause 6 of additional conditions within 15 days from the date of intimation of that position to the respondent Authority vide communication dated 17.06.2015. 7. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be rejected. 7. The argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, the communication received by the petitioner is not one of rejecting his request for grant of clearance. It only informs the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority. Further, additional condition No.6 cannot be read in isolation. It will have to be conjointly read with the main condition no.10 which obligates the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance certificate from the "Competent Authority". This condition does not absolve the person having applied to the State Authority. On the other hand, it refers to the notification issued by the Central Government dated 14.09.2006 and obligates to apply to the Competent Authority referred to therein. 8. Considering the fact that the land to be granted for the purpose of mining to the petitioner is covered by the category in respect of which environmental clearance certificate can be issued only by the Central Authority, the application made by the petitioner to the State Authority will be of no avail. Instead the meaning to be ascribed to additional condition no.6, must necessarily be understood in the context of the Authority mentioned in main clause 10 of the auction notice - which means the Central Authority in the present case. Unless the petitioners request is rejected by the said Authority, the additional clause No.6, entitling the petitioner for refund of the security deposit amount will not come into play at all. Additional Clause No.6, in other words, will get activated only if it is a case of rejection of the permission for grant of environmental clearance certificate by the Authority competent to issue such certificate and not by any other response given by any other Authority. 9. As a result, additional condition No.6 of the auction notice which is pressed into service, will be of no avail to the petitioner. If so understood, the security deposit amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be construed as a debt payable by the State to the petitioner, as such. It would assume the form of a debt only if the Authority competent to issue environmental clearance certificate were to reject the application for permission made by the interested person who has participated in the auction process for grant of mining lease. 10. It would assume the form of a debt only if the Authority competent to issue environmental clearance certificate were to reject the application for permission made by the interested person who has participated in the auction process for grant of mining lease. 10. Thus understood, the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, will be of no avail, as the petitioner has not become entitled for refund of the amount - which would be possible only if it is a case covered by additional condition no.6 in the auction notice. 11. The consequences of non compliance of the other conditions in the auction notice must follow, as per law. We are not expressing any opinion on those aspects in the present proceedings. That can be examined as and when occasion arises. 12. We further clarify that it is still open to the petitioner to approach the Central Authority and explore the possibility of obtaining environmental clearance certificate, if so advised. 13. Petition disposed of accordingly.