SATYA MURMU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8 -3 -1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 1054 of 1999, whereby he allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 4 herein, and directed the respondent to make a fresh settlement in accordance with the directions contained in the order, while setting aside the settlement made in favour of the appellant herein. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is about the manner in which the settlement of sand Ghats is to made under the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1972, since a special procedure has been prescribed for settlement of such sand Ghats.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. The appellant herein, who was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, claims to be the Secretary of a Co -operative Society, known as Karmoi Labour Co -operative Society Limited. His case was that by application dated 8 -11 -1998 he had applied for settlement of the sand Ghats in question for the year 1999 in favour of the Co -operative Society. It is not disputed that an application was made on a plain paper and was not accompanied by a fee of Rs. 2.000/ - and the relevant documents, affidavits, etc. which are required to be filed along with the application under Rule 9 of the Rules. While the application of the appellant was pending, a public notice was published in the daily newspaper 'Aaj' on 1 -12 -1998 for settlement of all the sand Ghats in the district of Dumka. At serial No. 14 of the notice the sand Ghats of Barakar river falling in the district of Dumka were mentioned. By the said notice, all concerned were informed that the sand Ghats mentioned therein were to be settled oh the basis of public auctions to be held on December 15, 18 and 21, 1998, The writ petitioner, who is respondent No. 4 in this appeal, deposited the security amount of Rs. 40,000/ - on 14 -12 -1998 in response to the said public notice. The auction was held on 21 -12 -1998 and he was the highest bidder bidding an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/ - for the settlement of the Ghats in question. The appellant herein did not participate in the auction, but after the auction was held the Society expressed its willingness to take settlement of the Ghats in question, and offered an amount slightly higher than that offered by respondent No. 4. For the earlier year i.e. for the year 1998 the disputed Ghats were settled for Rs. 3,01,000/ - and, therefore, the offers made by the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 were more than twenty per cent higher than the amount for which the Ghats were settled in the preceding year. It is not disputed that respondent No. 4 also deposited Rs. 2,12.000/ -, as required in the notice. However, he was not granted permission to operate the Ghats, and no agreement was executed in his favour. On 24 -12 -1998 the District Mining Officer, Dumka, addressed, a letter to the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 intimating them that a fresh auction for the settlement of the disputed Ghats would be held on 29 -12 -1998. Both the tenderers were asked to take part in the auction failing which an ex -parte decision would be taken. Unfortunately, the appellant did not appear on 29 -12 -1998 to take part in the public auction and, therefore, there was no fresh bid on 29 -12 -1998. According to the appellant, it was entitled to the settlement of Ghats under Rule 11 -C of the Rules, since it had offered a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/ - for the settlement which was slightly higher than the bid made by the petitioner in the auction held on 21 -12 -1998. Ultimately, respondent -authorities decided to settle the sand Ghats in question for the year 1999 in favour of the appellant and it was informed accordingly by letter dated 31 -12 -1998. The appellant -Society deposited a total sum of Rs. l,52,500/ - and thereafter on 1 -1 -1999, it was delivered possession of the sand Ghats by the Inspector of Mines with permission to operate the Ghats.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 aggrieved by the settlement of the Ghats made in favour of the appellant herein filed a writ petition before this Court and ultimately, the writ petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 8th March, 1999.