CWP No. 12629 of 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CWP No. 12629 of 2019

Date of Decision: May 05, 2022

****

Kanwaljeet Singh Gill

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Madaan

***

Present:-

Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate

for Mr. Tushar Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

****

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. (Oral)

In this Writ Petition, petitioner is seeking refund of amount of

security and earnest money of Rs.6,07,82,390/- along with compound

interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of

realization.

The State of Punjab has issued an auction notice with regard to

certain sites of mining on 13.6.2017 vide Annexure P1.

Petitioner was successful for the mining area of Ailgran.

Provisional approval was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure

P2 on 7.7.2017 for Rs.6,07,82,390/- paying the yearly contract money.

Thereafter, the General Manager-Cum-Mining Officer wrote to

the Director, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi vide Annexure

P3 dt. 28.8.2017 for transfer of environmental clearance certificate in favour

PARVINDER SINGH

2022.05.12 11:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 12629 of 2019

2

of the petitioner. The same was however effected only on 27.12.2017 vide

Annenxure P4.

According to the petitioner, the Government of India had

granted the environmental clearance to the Government of Punjab for a

period of five years vide letter dt.28.6.2013. The clearance, therefore, lapsed

on 28.6.2018, and so the petitioner could not do mining.

The petitioner completed all the formalities as required as per

guidelines of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act,

1957, and the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 2013.

The petitioner contends that he discovered that material to be

mined in the area allotted to the petitioner was much less than what was

projected in the auction notice, and he made a representation Annexure P7

dt.16.2.2018 to respondent No. 1 for reassessment from the concerned

department regarding the material available at the site.

The State of Punjab then wrote to the Deputy Commissioner

vide Annexure P8 dt.4.5.2018 directing the Site Appraisal Committee to

visit, and report within ten days, by taking along the petitioner.

Thereafter, the Site Appraisal Committee visited the spot, and

inspection was carried out, and the report was prepared, and sent to the

Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioner contends that the said report indicates that the

total mineable material available was only 7861.8081 tons while in the

auction notice the respondent had indicated that the available mineral was

23,000 tons per annum, which could be mined. He also contends that the

said report indicated that most of the area mentioned in the auction notice

PARVINDER SINGH

2022.05.12 11:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 12629 of 2019

3

was not even mineable.

The petitioner therefore made representation (Annexure P-10)

on 21.9.2018 to respondent No. 1 to take action in accordance with the

latest site appraisal report. In the meantime, the environmental clearance,

which was granted by the Government of India itself expired in June, 2018,

and fresh clearance was not obtained.

The petitioner, therefore, seeks refund of the amount of

Rs.6,07,82,390/- from the respondents since petitioner's representation

Annexure P-12 dt. 8.4.2019 seeking the said refund was not disposed of.

Reply was filed by the Executive Engineer-Cum-District

Mining Officer, Rupnagar (respondent No. 5) opposing grant of relief to the

petitioner.

There is no denial in the reply about the findings recorded in

Annexure P-9 by the mining Site Appraisal Committee as to the quantum of

mineral available in the site which was allotted to the petitioner in the

auction.

It is contende