(1.) WHAT is the extent of preference to which a Co -operative Society is entitled in the matter of settlement of sand as minor mineral under the provisions of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 ? This is the question that falls for consideration in this case and the answer to this simple question is made difficult due to some random and disjointed amendments introduced in the rules. Before adverting to the relevant rules however, it would be appropriate to take note of the brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid question.
(2.) THE parties are in dispute over settlement of all the sand ghats of Barkar river falling in the district of Dumka. Respondent no. 4 is the Secretary of a Co -operative Society registered under the name of 'Karmoi Labour Cooperative Society Limited'. He made an application dated 8.11.1998 (Annexure -A) to the Assistant District Mines Officer, Dumka for the settlement of the sand ghats in question for the year 1999 in favour of the Co -operative Society. It may be noted that the application was on plain paper; it was neither in form 'A' nor was it accompanied by a fee of Rs. 2000/ - and the relevant documents, affidavits and declarations as required under rule 9 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). It appears that before any ORDER :was passed on the application made by respondent no.4, a public notice was published in the daily newspaper 'Aaj' of 1.12.1998 for the settlement of all the sand ghats in the district of Dumka. The sand ghats of Barkar river, falling in the district of Dumka were mentioned at serial no. 14 of this notice. According to the notice the settlement of the sand ghats were to be made on the basis of public auctions scheduled to be held on December 15, 18 and 21, 1998. In response to the notice the petitioner, on 14.12.1998, deposited the security amount of Rs. 40,000/ - and in the public auction held on 21.12.1998 he made the highest bid of Rs. 4,20,000/ - for the settlement of the disputed ghats in his favour. It may be noted that respondent no. 4 did not participate in the auction but at its end he approached the authorities and stated that the Society was willing to take the settlement of the ghats at the highest bid amount offered by the petitioner. It may further be noted here that for the year 1998. the settlement of the disputed ghats was made for Rs.3,01,000/ - and the offer made by respondent no. 4 was thus more than 20% higher then the settlement amount for the preceding year. Following the auction on 21.12.1998 in which he was declared to be the highest bidder the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/ - (in addition to the Security amount deposited by him earlier) as required in the notice. However, he was not given any parvana to operate the ghats and no agreement was executed in his favour. Instead the District Mines Officer, Dumka issued letter no. 681, dated 24.12.1998, addressed both to the petitioner and respondent no.4 (Annexure -2) intimating them that a fresh auction for the settlement of the disputed ghats would be held on 29.12.1998 and asking both the contenders to take part in that auction failing which an ex patte decision would be taken. On 29.12.1998 the petitioner went to the office of the District Mining Officer but no fresh bid was held, according to the petitioner, because respondent no. 4 failed to appear. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that no fresh bid was held on 29.12.1998 as respondent no. 4 refused to take part in any bid and claimed settlement of the disputed ghats in favour of the society under Rule 11C of the Rules offering a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/ - which was slightly higher than the bid made by the petitioner in the auction held on 21.12.1998. On the basis of the offer made by respondent no. 4 and in the light of the report received from the District Co -operative Officer the respondent authorities decided to settle the sand ghats of Barakar river for the year 1999 in favour of respondent noA and he was accordingly inf9rmed by letter no, 710, dated 31.12.1998. The Co -operative Society then deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/ - and on 1.1.1999 the Mines Inspector delivered the possession of the sand ghats to respondent no. 4 with due permission to operate the ghats.
(3.) THE petitioner thus having failed in his bid for the settlement of the ghats came to this court in this writ petition. On notice being issued both respondent no. 4 and the State respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavits and the parties were heard for final disposal of this case on February 14 and 15, 1999.