IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3203 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2021
Unconscionable - Mining Lease Extension - Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 - Rule 77(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief for the levy and refund of excess royalty paid for an extended mining lease period. The State extended the mining lease with an enhanced amount of 150% instead of 120%. The petitioner continued mining without objection and later filed a petition challenging the extension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct precluded him from challenging the extension after benefiting from it. The court held that the extension was within the power of the State Government as per Rule 77(2) of the 2019 Rules and did not violate public policy.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the extension, the petitioner's conduct, and the application of Rule 77(2) of the 2019 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct implied acceptance of the extension and cited Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court also referred to previous cases to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and found no reason to interfere with the State Government's decision to extend the mining lease.
JUDGMENT :
Following question arises for consideration before this Court:-
Does the conduct of the petitioner disentitle him from making the claim that the action of the State in granting extension of mining lease on an amount slightly higher than the prevalent rate amounts to unconscionable, illegal, arbitrariness or unreasonable act?
2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(ii) Consequent to grant of relief no. (i) to issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the excess royalty paid by the petitioner for the extended period i.e. from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020.
(iii) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that extensions granted to the petitioner from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, were extensions of the existing settlement for the years 2015-2019 upon the same terms and conditions and therefore the Respondents could not have varied the terms and conditions thereof, more particularly insofar as calculation of payable royalty for such extended period is concerned.
(iv) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that for the extended period i.e. from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, the petitioner was liable to pay royalty at the rate of 120% of the royalty payable for the year 2019.
(v) This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that action of the Respondents in charging royalty for the extended period, at the rate of 150% of the royalty payable for the year 2019, is incorrect and illegal as the same amounts to modifying/altering of the terms and conditions of the existing settlement agreement, which is not permissible in the case of an extension.
(vi) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that import of memo no. 4948 dated 27.12.2019 and memo no. 4949 dated 27.12.2019 was merely to extend, enlarge and prolong the existing lease/settlement and therefore the respondents could not have modified the terms and conditions thereof, particularly insofar as calculation of royalty for such extended period is concerned.
(vii) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the action of the respondents in this matter is completely unjustified and unwarranted.”
3. It is not in dispute that vide a written agreement dated 13.04.2015, rights for mining the sand in accordance with the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) stood accorded to the petitioner. The grant, which is commonly termed as settlement, was for a period of five years commencing from the calendar year 2015 up to 2019. The settlement amount for these five calendar years, as stipulated in the agreement, reads as under:-
Settlement amount of calendar year, 2016 will be 120% of calendar year 2015 settlement amount. Settlement amount of calendar year, 2017 will be 120% of calendar year 2016 settlement amount. Settlement amount of calendar year, 2018 will be 120% of calendar year 2017 settlement amount. Settlement amount of calendar year, 2019 will be 120% of calendar year 2018 settlement amount.”
4. This agreement did not contain any condition entitling the petitioner for either extension or renewal. It is also not in dispute that the grant, by virtue of Rule 34 of the Rules can be renewed on the application being filed by the lessee. But even this was not done.
5. It is also not in dispute that the matter with regard to the issue of mining of sand in the area in issue, though in an unrelated matter, was pending consideration,
Provash Chandra Dalui v. Bisawanath Banerjee
State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Nirmalaben S. Mehta and Ors.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
M.P. Mittal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 371
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Ors.
Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai [AIR 1960 SC 213 : (1960) 1 SCR 861]
The main legal point established is that a party's conduct, acceptance, and benefit from a contractual agreement can preclude them from challenging the agreement later.
Mining authorities cannot refuse lease extensions based on policy when statutory provisions support such extension, especially if the delay was not the lessee’s fault.
The State must timely address mining lease renewals; otherwise, it risks allowing continued operations based on statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of natural calamities and inaction by authorities, a party entitled to relief should be placed in the same position as if the wrong h....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.