SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure -3) passed by the Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna affirming the order dated 30.4.1999 (Annexure -2) passed by the Collector, Gaya whereby the settlement of Bhusunda Sand Ghat in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled and the amount deposited by him forfeited.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that a public notice was issued intimating that various Sand Ghats including Bhusunda Ghat shall be settled by public auction. The auction was to be held between 22.12.1998 and 25.12.1998. The notice inviting the persons to participate in the auction for settlement of Sand Ghat laid various terms and conditions. One of the terms and conditions of the settlement was that in case of bid amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/ -, 50% of the said amount shall be deposited on the following working day and for the balance amount, a bank guarantee is to be furnished. The notice inviting persons to participate in the auction further provided that in case the lease deed is not executed after complying the terms and conditions, same shall be cancelled.

(3.) MR . Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited 10% of the amount as securing money and 50% of the bid amount but the respondents having not given to the petitioner the work order, he did not operate the mines and hence, the action of the respondents in cancelling the settlement and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner, is illegal. He submits that in case, in which the work order is not given for operating the mines, the respondents shall have no authority to forfeit the. amount deposited for settlement. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Jai Durga Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1484 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph -11 of the judgment: "11.As the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, has merely proceeded on the basis that the appellant had entered into the contract with his eyes wide open, but, the same would not, in our opinion, mean that they were bound to pay the contract amount, get its security amount forfeited, as also pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent, although it could not, by reason of acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, carry out the mining operation as per the terms of the agreement."