MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SATRUGBAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions relate to dispute regarding grant of mining rights with respect to sand of river Sone in the districts of Rohtas, Bhojpur and Patna. In C. W. J. C. Nos. 445 and 1106 of 1995 the petitioners seek identical reliefs for a mandamus to issue Parwana in token of the settlement of the Sand Ghats in question and for quashing the order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 13 1995. C. W. J C. No. 11382 of 1994 is the converse case The Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') and its Chairman in that case seek mandamus to the respondents not to settle the Sand Ghats with the General Public by auction and to settle the same in its favour as in the past. The petitioners of C.W.J. C Nos, 445 and 1106 of 1995 will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners'. The petitioners of C. W. J C. No. 11382 of 1994 will be refered to as 'the Corporation'. As the dispute is one and the same, the cases have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The representative facts giving rise to the dispute may be noticed first. On November 22, 1994 a high level meeting under the Chairmanship of the Minister Incharge' Mines was held to consider the question of making settlement of the Sand Ghats of the State. It appears that by virtue of Government decision contained in letter No. 10 dated January 11,1993 of the Mines and Geology Department, the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation had been authorised to excavate and despatch sand from the Sand Ghats of in different districts; Some more areas were added to the list later. In the aforesaid meeting held on November 28, 1994 a decision was taken to continue the old arrangement authorising the Corporation to excavate and despatch sand of the Sand Ghats of Nawada, Nalanda, Ranchi and Old Singhbhum. As regards such Sand Ghats which had not fetched the desired revenue, it was decided to make settlement by public auction. The decision was communicated by the Director of Mines on December 6, 1994. On December 16/18, 1994 auction notice was published in the newspapers fixing the dates of auction as December 21, 28 and 30, 1994 The petitioners participated in the auction and bid the highest amount which, it is said, was accepted. On December 22, 1994 C. W. J. C. No. 11382 was filed in this Court. An interim order was passed on December 23, 1994 permitting the petitioners of that case to make representation in respect of their claim before the Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar, who in that event was directed to consider the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law by reasoned order within two weeks Although auction process was not stayed, it was directed that the possession of the Ghats in question will not be delivered to the successful bidders in the meantime. The Mines Commissioner vide his notes dated January 10,1995 took the view that in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on November 28, 1994 the Sand Ghats in question had to be settled by public auction. The Corporation having not participated in the auction was not entitled to any consideration. The idea of the Corporation about its preferential right in the matter of Battlement was in the opinion of the Mines Commissioner, not tenable. However, as the previous decision dated November 28. 1994 had been taken at the Minister's level, the Mines Commissioner thought it proper to place the mater before the Minisier for consideration. The Minister vide his minutes dated January 10, 1995 thought otherwise and directed that instead of making settlement in favour of the Corporation the management of the Sand Ghats be entjusted to it as in the past on certain revised terms. The impugned order of the Mines Commissioner entrusting the management of the Ghats in question for the year 1995 were issued on January 13. 1995. The petitioners, who were the highest bidders in the auction held with respect to the respective Sand Ghats, in the circumstances, filed the writ petitions. C. W. J C. Nos 445 of 1995 and 1106 of 1995 respectively for the reliefs which have been mentioned at the outset.

(3.) The main plank of the petitioners' claim is that Rule 4 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1972 (in short 'the Rules') prohibits mining operation in any area except under in accordance with the terms and conditions of carrying permit or mining lease, as the case may be, granted under the rules, and in terms of Rule 11A Sand can be settled only by public auction with the highest bidder subject to preferential rights of Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies and Corporative Societies under Rule 12 where the lease is required for work directly concerned with the Department case. If they fulfil the conditions required for the grant of mining lease but even grant the procedure envisaged under Rule 9 has to be followed. The Rules no doubt, contemplates reservation of certain area under Rule 5 (2) or relaxation of terms and conditions under Rule 36 but the requirement of lease is not dispensed with. While reservation can be made only by notification and for the use of the Government, Local Bodies or for any other public or special purposes, the terms and conditions prescribed by rules can be varied and relaxed only in public interest. It is also urged that the Collector is the only authority competent to permit aay kind of mining operation. The Collector having held auction and approved the settlement in favour of the petitioners, as evident from letter of the District Mining Officer. Rohtas dated December 28. 1994, he was bound to grant lease It is said that but for the aforementioned interim order dated December 25, 1994. and the order of the Mines Commissioner dated January 30. 1995 passed pursuant thereto, the lease would have been granted as by reason of acceptance of the offer made by the petitioners in the shape of bid a concluded contract would be deemed to have come into existence.