Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
Westlink Trading Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2746 of 2020
Decided on : 11-01-2021
Mining Laws – Extension of Mining Lease – Issue regarding delay attributable to respondent-authorities has finally been adjudicated between parties – In instant proceedings, by way of a fresh writ petition, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate same issue – This Court, in earlier writ proceedings seeking same relief, had clearly come to a finding that petitioner had no legal claim, enforceable by issuance of a direction in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India for extension of lease for 3 years from date of work order – These findings have been accepted by petitioner, as no appeal is said to have been preferred against findings recorded in petitioner's earlier writ proceedings – It does not lie in mouth of petitioner, in these proceedings, to again contend that respondent-authorities were responsible for delay in mining plan approval, issuance of Environmental Clearance, or delay in issuance of Work Order for which delay, petitioner has already been found to be responsible – Delay in issuance of Work Order in favour of petitioner was due to petitioner's lapses – On this ground also, petitioner cannot claim extension of lease period – Petitioner is estopped from now raising a plea that delay was attributable to Respondent-Authorities as it has elected to remain silent and accepted findings recorded in earlier order – Prayer made in instant writ proceedings for extension of same lease, again on same plea that delay in obtaining mining lease is attributable to State authorities is barred by estoppel – Petitioner's challenge to order of rejection is clearly unsustainable and claim for extension of tenure or challenge to option are without any merit – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 17, 23, 27, 30, 35, 45 and 46)
JUDGMENT :
Madhuresh Prasad, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present today when the matter is listed For Judgment in actual physical Court proceedings after having been heard earlier through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is a settlee of Sand Mining Lease in the two districts of Jamui and Luckeesarai for the period 2016 - 2019.
3. The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing of
(ii) quashing of Memo dated 31.10.2019 whereby petitioner's prayer for extension of the terms of its lease was rejected by the Department.
(iii) to treat the petitioner's operative settlement to be three years from the date of issuance of "work order" and consequential reliefs.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Mr Shashi Anugrah Narain has made submissions. Mr Brij Bihari Tiwary, learned Special PP (Mines) has appeared for the Mines Department. Mr Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned GA VII has appeared for the State Government.
5. The brief facts relevant to the case are that an Advertisement was published on 24.06.2016 for settlement by auction of sand ghats at Luckeesarai and Jamui districts for the period 2016 - 2019. Reserve price had been fixed separately for the two districts.
6. The petitioner participated in the auction and was declared the highest bidder. The combined bid amount submitted by the petitioner for the two units in the two Districts was Rs 49 crores, which placed the petitioner as the highest bidder. Petitioner was, thus, declared eligible/selected for settlement of the two sand ghats for sand mining.
7. "In-principal" approval in terms of Clause 9 (i) of the Tender Document for mining was issued by the Collector, Jamui on 22.07.2016 and for the sand ghats located in Luckeesarai on 23.07.2016 by the Collector, Luckeesarai. Extract of the relevant Clause 9 of the Tender reads as follows:
8. The undisputed facts are that in terms of Clause 9 of the Tender Document, 25% of the security amount after adjusting the amounts earlier paid was to be tendered within a week from the date of auction. It is only thereafter that "in-principal" approval was to be granted. From bare reading of sub-clause (ii) of Clause 9, it is apparent that a Work Order can be issued to the successful bidder, subject to conditions that the entire first installment of the settlement amount (50%) is paid prior to issuance of the Work Order. Successful bidder was also required to submit evidence that for obtaining Mining Plan and Environmental Clearance Certificate, they have taken all steps in accordance with the Rules and that the same would be submitted within a specified time limit. The admitted position is that sub-clause (ii) of Clause 9 has not been complied with by the petitioner.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Company could not have obtained environmental clearance unless the Mining Plan was approved by the Department. Authorities are responsible for the delayed approval of the Mining Plan, which finally came to be issued on 29.06.2017, even though it wa
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 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.
The State must timely address mining lease renewals; otherwise, it risks allowing continued operations based on statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
