DINESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is quite unfortunate, as it appears to me, that a lucrative deal clinched by a partner has been lost to the partnership by reason of the greed on the part of the said partner. From the records and pleadings, the following emerges.

(2.) ON 1st August, 2003, a deed of partnership firm was executed by the petitioner and by seven others. This deed provided that the partners shall carry on query business. On 23rd August, 2003, a public bid for settlement of a query lease was attended by the petitioner. The bid given by the petitioner was the highest bid and the same was accepted. In terms of the conditions of the bid, the successful bidder was required to deposit 20% of the bid money and was also required to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining 80% of the bid money. In terms of Rule 25 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, a successful bidder is required to obtain a formal lease within 90 days from the date of acceptance, of the bid. The successful bidder in terms of the Government order is also required to furnish bank guarantee within three months from the date of execution of the formal lease. In such view of the matter the petitioner was required to deposit approximately Rs. 34 lacs, being 20% of the bid money, and then to obtain the mining lease within 22nd November, 2003 and to furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining 80% of the bid money within 22nd February, 2004.

(3.) IF the petitioner had not executed the letter dated 19th September, 2003 which purports to be a representation by the partners of the partnership to settle the lease in favour of the partnership firm, then the petitioner was not aware of the existence of the said letter, moresowhen it is the specific case of the petitioner that his signature on the said letter has been forged. There is, however, no dispute that the petitioner received the letter dated 19th September, 2003 whereby the partnership firm was asked to have the lease deed executed. There is no dispute that the petitioner did execute the partnership deed on 1st August, 2004. He was aware that he has agreed with 7 others to carry on business in the name and style of Maa Mundeshwari Stones. This information, according to the petitioner, was not supplied by him to the State and its Officers. How the State and its Officers came to know about the existence of the said firm would have been the question which the petitioner would have asked first to the Mining Officer immediately on receipt of the letter dated 19th September, 2003. He, however, did not do anything. In the meantime he did not take any step whatsoever to obtain the lease. The time to obtain lease expired on 22nd November, 2003. According to the pleadings of the petitioner, only on receipt of the letter dated 29th November, 2003 the petitioner was satisfied that the Officers of the State are now proceeding with the matter in appropriate manner inasmuch as the said letter was addressed to him and not to the partnership firm. Despite being satisfied that the black spot of the partnership firm has been removed from the subject bid, the petitioner did not take one single step to have the lease in his favour. He did not take any step to obtain bank guarantee. As it appears to me, taking advantage of the letter dated 29th November, 2003, he for the first time on 17th March, 2004 held out before the Mining Officer that he alone is entitled to have the lease and not the partnership firm. As aforesaid, up to that date he did nothing to have the lease in his name.