Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jehal Prasad vs State Of Bihar . on 4 January, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh
ITEM NO.207 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15364/2008
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/05/2008
in LPA No. 331/2008 passed by the High Court Of Patna)
JEHAL PRASAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office
report)
Date : 04/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Santosh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Being grieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna in LPA No. 331 of 2008, the special leave petition has been preferred by the lessee.
Signature Not VerifiedThe petitioner was granted lease in respect of minor mineral, namely, stone chips and murram.
Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2016.01.05Be it stated that before the High 17:22:51 IST Reason: Court, a contention was raised by the petitioner that qua murram, no notification was issued under Rule 9A of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and, therefore, Rule 22A(4) could not have 2 been taken recourse to. The Division Bench of the High Court, while dealing with the said contention, in the intra-court appeal did not accept the same and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
When the special leave petition was taken up on 27.06.2008, this Court passed the following order :-
“Issue notice.
Having regard to the difference in the provisions of Rule 22 and Rule 22A of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and their application to the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, there will be an interim order to the effect hat the petitioner may continue mining operations under the mining lease as far as the minerals which have not been notified under Rule 9A of the aforesaid Rules are concerned. The petitioner shall remain restrained from excavating any mineral in the land in question which is covered by the Notification issued under Rule 9A of the above Rules.” It is submitted by Mr. R.K. Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has operated in the mines in respect of the murram till the expiry of the lease period, i.e. 30.09.2011 and, therefore, the legal issue need not be gone into. He has, however, referred to the prayer in I.A. No.7 of 2013 wherein it has been prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to lift the murram that has been excavated by him during the lease period.
A reply thereto has been filed by the competent authority of the State wherein in paragraph 8 and 10, it has been mentioned as follows :-
“8. With respect to the averment made in paragraph no.4 of the interlocutory application, it is respectfully submitted that the District Mining Officer and the Surveyor of the Department visited the site and found that there was no stock of murram. It is further submitted that what has found on the site was altogether 43800 cft of Boulder and 2251 cft of G.S.B. A true 3 copy of the report of the Surveyor is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - 'C'.
xxx xxx xxx
10. That with respect to averment made in paragraph no.9 of the interlocutory application it is respectfully submitted that same is vehemently denied. It is further submitted that same has already been stated in reply of paragraph no.4 of the interlocutory application that the Committee has found there is no mined murram is lying there and in view of the said fact/finding the averment made in paragraph no.9 of the interlocutory application is denied.” Submission of Mr. Khanna is that the inspection report mentions that large size boulders and murram and small GSBs are lying at several places and, therefore, he is entitled to lift the same.
Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the the stand in the affidavit and in the inspection report though clearly reveal that it is not murram and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to lift the same.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is no admission on the part of the State. On the contrary, there is a stand that there is no murram. It is mixed with certain other things. In such a situation, it will not be appropriate or apposite to permit the petitioner to lift the same. Hence, we only state that as the petitioner had operated on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court, no other proceedings shall be initiated against him. If any royalty has been taken treating the stock as per the inspection report as murram or any minor mineral, the same may be refunded to the petitioner.
In view of this, we permit the petitioner to make a representation indicating the royalty and dead rent collected in this regard within six weeks hence and the same shall be dealt with 4 in accordance with law within six weeks therefrom.
The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master