AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to advertisement issued by Government of Bihar in the Department of Mines and Geology through the Collector cum- District Magistrate, Rohtas, two acres of land was advertised for being leased for mining stone boulders for which this petitioner applied. There were bids held and petitioner, admittedly, outbid the competitors. Accordingly, on behalf of State of Bihar, a lease was to be executed by the Collector, Rohtas as the lessor in favour of the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that in order to win mineral in the shape of stone boulders, blasting operations have to be undertaken with the help of explosives otherwise the lease cannot be exploited. Accordingly, petitioner applied for explosive licence to the licensing authority who again happens to be the Collector, Rohtas. He waited. It is a matter of record that over three years have gone by and the Collector, Rohtas had slept over the matter. At whose instance or for whose benefit, this Court cannot speculate? The consequence was that the petitioner, who had agreed to pay large sums for having got the mining right, defaulted. Using this as an excuse, his mining lease was cancelled. He filed application before the Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar. He granted installments. As explosive licence was not being granted, petitioner again defaulted. This time, the Mines Commissioner, even though fully aware of the facts, refused to grant any further indulgence and affirmed the cancellation of lease. This brought the petitioner to this Court in a writ petition. This Court, having noticed the problem, granted installments and compensatory interest to compensate the State clearly pointing out that if the lease was cancelled and efforts to make resettlement was taken, State would lose immense amount of revenue.

(2.) Once this issue was settled, it is then that the Collector cum- District Magistrate, Rohtas agreed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 06th of February, 2010 though it was granted in 2008 itself. Even thereafter what happened to the petitioner's explosive licence is not known? The fact of the matter is that it was kept pending and not granted. Now in February 2011, once again the lease was cancelled. A new ground was invented by the Collector, who had issued the advertisement, made the settlement and executed the lease. This time he states that the lease had been granted without the consent of the Water Resources Department to whom the land belonged. A spacious plea on the face of it verging on mala fide. The Water Resources Department took a stand that they had granted permission to one Nagarjun Construction Company Limited for mining stone boulders of the same area but after that lease expired, they had not consented to the grant of lease to the petitioner. The Collector woke up to this issue after having realized substantial amount of money from the petitioner and having executed lease in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner challenged this before this Court but petitioner was relegated to the Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar. When the matter was taken up before the Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar, the Mines Commissioner has affirmed the order of cancellation, as passed by the Collector on the singular ground of there being no permission from the Water Resources Department. The petitioner came to this Court again and challenged the order, as passed in revision by the Mines Commissioner. This time, this Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Collector, Rohtas for fresh consideration. The Collector, Rohtas once again cancelled the lease this time on two grounds, (i) default in payment of installments as agreed and (ii) that no permission of the Water Resources Department was taken to lease out the area for mining even though they had granted permission to the earlier lessee. Petitioner, being fed up and having burnt his fingers, lost enormous amount of money, has thus come to this Court.

(3.) When this matter was taken up, by detailed order noticing the salient facts as noted above, by order dated 21.11.2013, a comprehensive counter affidavit was required to be filed duly sworn by the Commissioner (Mines), Government of Bihar himself, both as to the facts and as to the law. Today, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed under affidavit of the Commissioner (Mines), Government of Bihar which, to say the least, is an apology for an affidavit. The facts in relation to the plea of non-grant of explosive licence has not even been adverted to but what surprises this Court is that the Commissioner (Mines) maintains that the land belongs to Water Resources Department and not to Mining Department and, as such, the Mining Department could not have leased it out without permission or consent of the Water Resources Department. According to the learned Commissioner, the owners are different entities, even though this Court had already observed in the order dated 21.11.2013 requiring him to file affidavit, that the land does not belong to any Department. It belongs to the Government. These facts should have been looked into by the Collector before advertisement was issued. State cannot play hot and cold at the same time. If the stand of the Collector and the Mines Commissioner is correct that they had wrongly advertised for the lease having no authority to do it then they would be entitled to rescind the lease but upon refunding every single rupee paid by the petitioner alongwith compensatory interest for having misled the petitioner into a void lease.