RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 5 -Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar under memo no. 1118 dated 09.09.2017, whereby the settlement |ease duly executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar - the respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioner in respect of Niktha sand ghat on Ajay River has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondent authorities either to settle some other sand ghat in favour of the petitioner or to refund all the investment made by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,31,26,339.00 with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of the same.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that pursuant to the public auction held on 006.2015, the sand ghat on Ajay River in Village-Niktha of Deoghar District (hereinafter referred to as "Niktha sand ghat") was settled in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder and thereafter the petitioner deposited requisite amount as per the terms and conditions of the settlement. The respondent no. 5, vide letter no. 1052 dated 26.06.2015 issued the Letter of Intent (LCD and informed the petitioner that the approval in principle has been given for the settlement of Niktha sand ghat in his favour. The petitioner was thus asked to submit the mining plan for approval and also to obtain environmental clearance certificate from the competent authority and submit the same so that the work order for lifting the sand could be issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 under memo no. 1131 dated 03.07.2015 issued a certificate to the petitioner to the effect that there was no mining lease holder within one kilometer of Niktha sand ghat of Saatar Panchayat in Deoghar District. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 also intimated the Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand about the approval of mining plan under rule 34E of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rule, 2014. Accordingly, the SEIAA issued environment clearance to the project of Niktha sand ghat of the petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the settlement agreement was executed between the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner and the same was also registered on 18.03.2016. The petitioner started the mining operation on Niktha sand ghat. Soon thereafter, the Circle Officer, Deoghar vide his letter no. 669 dated 03.05.2016 informed the respondent no. 3 that Niktha sand ghat is within 500 meters of a High Level Bridge on Ajay River, whereas extraction/lifting of sand is permissible only beyond 500 meters of the High Level Bridge on a river. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to extract/lift the sand. The petitioner vide his letter dated 11.05.2016 requested the respondent no. 5 for permission to lift sand from adjacent sand ghats of Khaspeka, Deopura, etc. The respondent no. 5 sought necessary direction in the matter from the respondent no. 2 - the Director (Mines), Industry, MinesGeology Department, Government of Jharkhand, however, no such direction was issued. Thus, the petitioner vide letter dated 11/13.01.2017 submitted his representation to the various authorities requesting therein either to permit him to lift the sand or to refund the entire investment made in the project. However, nothing was done by the respondents and thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 696 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 14.02017 with a direction to the competent authority/the respondent no. 3 to take a decision in the matter within a reasonable time. Pursuant to the order dated 14.02017, the respondent no. 5 passed the impugned order contained in memo no. 1118 dated 09.09.2017, whereby the settlement of the Niktha sand ghat in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has suffered a huge loss without any fault on his part. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 has wrongly observed that the petitioner has lifted the sand from Niktha sand ghat for 30 days, rather the true fact is that he never lifted sand either from Niktha sand ghat or from any other ghat. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary as on the one hand, they themselves settled Niktha sand ghat in favour of the petitioner and received the requisite amount of settlement from him and on the other hand, took a decision that no lifting is permissible from the Niktha sand ghat as it is situated within 500 meter of a High Level Bridge on Ajay river.