Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 504 (JHR)

Bullu Kumar Ray v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-26

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter No. 229/M dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 5 as well as letter No. 1046/M dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 4. Further prayer has been made for quashing the entire certificate proceeding of Certificate Case No. 06/2021-22, pending before the District Certificate Officer, Dhanbad Mining Circle, Dhanbad for recovery of Rs. 32,61,238/- against non-payment of due amount for settlement of Mahadevdih sand Ghat on Usri river for the period from 2015-16 to 2017-18. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement of the sand Ghat in question was finalised in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder and an agreement to that effect was also executed between the petitioner and the concerned authority. The petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,50,000/- in instalments, out of which he deposited a sum of Rs. 40,40,000/- i.e. 80% of the bid amount. Since the said agreement was made effective from 17.10.2015, he was not able to carry out the mining activity for the period of three years as the same came to an end on 31.03.2018. Under the said circumstance, the said demand raised by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had already represented before the respondent No. 5 on the present issue in the year 2018 itself, however, the same was not responded and thereafter the aforesaid certificate proceeding was initiated against him for recovery of Rs. 32,61,238/-. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the agreement for settlement of the sand Ghat in question with the petitioner itself suggests that duration of the same was from 17.10.2015 till 31.03.2018. Since the petitioner had signed the said agreement, he cannot now contend that he should have been allowed to carry out the mining activity in the sand Ghat in question for complete three years i.e. till 16.10.2018. 4. I find substance in the said submission of the learned AAG-III. Bare perusal of the agreement dated 10.11.2015, which has been jointly signed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, it would appear that the period of the same was from 17.10.2015 to 31.03.2018. 4. I find substance in the said submission of the learned AAG-III. Bare perusal of the agreement dated 10.11.2015, which has been jointly signed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, it would appear that the period of the same was from 17.10.2015 to 31.03.2018. Mere filing of the representation will not absolve the petitioner from the liability of paying the settlement amount. Moreover, there had been no order reducing the settlement amount. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the settlement amount in full. Hence, I see no infirmity in raising the said demand of the balance settlement amount as well as the other related dues and initiating a certificate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the same. The petitioner is at liberty to file statutory objection in the aforesaid certificate proceeding and to contest the same. 5. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.