Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1793 (JHR)

Gupta Traders v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-29

ARUN KUMAR RAI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : [Per se, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.] 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s): “(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the reasoned order contained in Memo No. 572/M dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Godda, wherein the representation filed by the Petitioner for proportionate reduction of bid amount in respect of sand ghat situated at Mouza Sanchpur Sakhi in the District of Godda has been rejected. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside letter contained in Memo No. 1091/M dated 11th August, 2021 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 2, wherein Respondent-authorities have demanded the entire bid amount from the Petitioner along with interest in respect of sand ghat situated at Mouza Sanchpur Sakhi in the District of Godda despite the fact that the Petitioner was not issued any mining challan/transport challan by Respondent- authorities with effect from 09.06.2017 even though the Petitioner was having subsisting mining lease for excavation, transportation and sale of sand up to 8 th September, 2018. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Petitioner is entitled for proportionate reduction of its bid amount in respect of sand ghat situated at Mouza Sanchpur Sakhi in the District of Godda in view of the fact that the Petitioner was not issued any mining challan/transport challan by Respondent-authorities with effect from 09.06.2017 despite the fact that the Petitioner was having subsisting mining lease for excavation, transport and sale of sand up to 8th September, 2018.” 2. The brief facts, as per pleadings made in the present writ petition are as follows: The respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Godda published an Auction Notice in terms of Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for settlement of various Sand Ghats in the District of Godda for the financial year 2015-16 to 2017-18 for a period of three years. The petitioner participated in the said auction process and was declared successful in respect of Sand Ghat situated at Mouza Sanchpur Sakhi, having an area of 3.79 acres in the District of Godda and the total bid amount of the petitioner was Rs. 9,45,000/-. The petitioner participated in the said auction process and was declared successful in respect of Sand Ghat situated at Mouza Sanchpur Sakhi, having an area of 3.79 acres in the District of Godda and the total bid amount of the petitioner was Rs. 9,45,000/-. Accordingly, a Letter of Intent vide Letter No. 482/M dated 7 May, 2015 was issued by the office of respondent no.3 and the petitioner was directed to deposit 40% of the bid amount within a period of ten days and, thereafter, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/- on 13.5.2015 and also Rs. 94,500/- being 10% of the bid amount towards Security Deposit and, thus, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the total bid value and also Rs. 9,450/- in terms of section 206(1C) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 with the respondent authority. Thereafter, on 09.09.2015 an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 in terms of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 for extraction/transportation of sand. The petitioner got its Mining Plan sanctioned including environmental clearance and started execution of work in respect of the sand ghat in question. The sand ghat in question was allotted to the petitioner from 09.09.2015 to 08.09.2018 and despite the fact that the petitioner was carrying out the work after complying all requirements, the respondent authority with effect from 9.6.2017 stopped the petitioner from carrying out mining nd rd operation and demanding 2 and 3 installments towards bid amount to be paid by the petitioner, failing which, the petitioner was directed to deposit even interest amount on the balance bid amount. The petitioner on several occasions approached the respondent authorities requesting them to recall the demand nd rd pertaining to 2 and 3 installments, but no decision has been taken. On the contrary, another notice has been issued to the petitioner stating that the said amount would be recovered from the petitioner through Certificate Proceedings. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed a representation before the respondent no.1 stating that bid amount should not be realized from the petitioner and, in the event the said amount is contemplated to be realized against the petitioner, the petitioner should be allowed to operate its sand ghat for an additional period for which the petitioner was restrained from operating mining operation. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a writ application before this Court being WP(C) No. 3717 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2021 and the petitioner was granted liberty to prefer fresh representation before the respondent authority. The petitioner has filed a fresh representation before the respondent no.1 who has passed a reasoned order dated 13.4.2022 wherein the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire bid amount. The further case of the petitioner is that as of now the validity of lease has already been expired and only question remains with respect to refund of the performance security amount, hence, this writ petition has been filed. Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the ground that it cannot be said that any irregularity has been committed on behalf of the petitioner in view of the fact that non-payment of the amount, in installment, has been brought to the notice of the respondent no.1 by making a representation with a request for reduction of bid amount in respect of sand ghat in question but that has not been accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further taken a ground that without taking any decision on the bona fide shown in the representation stopping him from carrying out mining operation from 09.6.2017 is highly arbitrary exercise of the respondent concerned and, cannot be said to be just and proper. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the Performance Security amount, in such circumstances, must be refunded but the same has not been refunded as yet. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State: 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that once the parties have agreed to carry out the mining operation it is the bounden duty of the lease holder to comply with the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement. It has further been submitted that once the conditions have been agreed for making payment by cut-off date then there cannot be exemption/relaxation in terms of Clause-6 to Chapter-IV of the lease agreement. It has further been submitted that once the conditions have been agreed for making payment by cut-off date then there cannot be exemption/relaxation in terms of Clause-6 to Chapter-IV of the lease agreement. The competent authority has issued letters/reminders apprising the lease holder, the writ petitioner, to make payment of interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of regularizing the non-payment of the amount before the cut-off date but even then the amount has not been paid. Hence, due to breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement, the writ petitioner has been stopped from carrying out mining operation. It has further been submitted that these aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner –cum- District Magistrate, Godda in the order impugned dated 12.4.2022/13.4.2022 which has been passed on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3717 of 2021. The learned counsel for the State based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a case wherein no positive order can be passed, particularly, by issuing writ of certiorari showing interference with the reasoned order dated 12.4.2022/13.4.2022 annexed as Annexure-10. Analysis: 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also in the counter-affidavit. This Court on consideration of the submissions and the pleadings made in the writ petition is required to consider that whether in a case where the condition of lease agreement has not been fulfilled and also the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected on the aforesaid grounds by the administrative authority, can any relief be granted by the Court of law. This Court for the purpose of answering the aforesaid issue needs to refer herein the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement which are as under: It is apparent from the conditions stipulated that there is no dispute with respect to deposit of 50% amount, since, the same has been deposited prior to carrying out the mining operation. This Court for the purpose of answering the aforesaid issue needs to refer herein the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement which are as under: It is apparent from the conditions stipulated that there is no dispute with respect to deposit of 50% amount, since, the same has been deposited prior to carrying out the mining operation. The dispute herein is for deposit of rest of the 50% amount which was to be deposited as per the terms and conditions stipulated at clause “ka and kha” of Clause 4 to Chapter-IV to the lease agreement that 30% of the amount for the year 2015-2016 must be deposited by 28.2.2016 and rest amount for the financial year 2016-2017 shall be deposited up to 28.2.2017. Clause-5 to Chapter-IV speaks that in a case where a lease holder has breached the condition of depositing the amount before the cut-off date then the same can be regularized subject to payment of interest @24% per annum from the date he stopped paying the installments. The consequence has been provided under Clause-6 to Chapter IV that in a case of breach of conditions pertaining to deposit of installment, the lease agreement shall be cancelled. For reference Clause No.5 and 6 to Chapter IV are quoted hereunder: Adverting to the factual aspects which have also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument that the installment to the extent of 30% which was to be paid up to 28.2.2016 and the rest of the amount which was to be paid up to 28.2.2017 has not been paid by the writ petitioner. It is also admitted that the due communications have been made on behalf of the competent authority for making payment of the said amount but the same has not been paid up to the aforesaid cut-off dates. The reminders have also been issued as would evident from Annexure-C to Annexure-J to the counter-affidavit. The competent authority has again issued a communication in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner for payment of rest of the amount along with interest of 24% per annum but the same has not been deposited. The authorities, in such circumstances, have taken the recourse available to them as stipulated in Clause No.6 to Chapter-IV of the agreement by stopping the mining operation which was being carried out by the petitioner. The authorities, in such circumstances, have taken the recourse available to them as stipulated in Clause No.6 to Chapter-IV of the agreement by stopping the mining operation which was being carried out by the petitioner. The writ petitioner has gave up the interest in carrying out the mining operation and, consequent thereto, has raised claim of refund of the Performance Security amount and has come to this court for redressal of his grievance. This Court vide order dated 29.11.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 3717 of 2021 has given liberty to the writ petitioner to make representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to consider and pass appropriate order. The petitioner filed a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda who has passed a reasoned order dated 29.11.2021 and in view of the admitted fact of non-deposit of the amount even though opportunities have been given, has declined to pass positive direction. Thereafter, the said order has been challenged before this Court to interfere by issuing writ of certiorari. It requires to refer herein the settled position of law that if any terms and conditions have been agreed upon by the parties the same cannot be relaxed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise it will amount to re-write the terms and conditions of contract as has been held in the case of Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors. , reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 & 12 it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp. , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that “after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent. 6. In view of aforesaid proposition of law if clause “Ka and Kha” as available under clause-4 to Chapter-IV of the agreement would be allowed, it will amount to relaxing the terms and conditions of the contract which is not permissible. 6. In view of aforesaid proposition of law if clause “Ka and Kha” as available under clause-4 to Chapter-IV of the agreement would be allowed, it will amount to relaxing the terms and conditions of the contract which is not permissible. Accordingly, the issue which has been framed by this Court is hereby answered. 7. In view of above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Pending I.A.(s) if any, stands disposed of.