Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shri Ganga Syndicate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2015
W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015
1
06.08.2015
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Barnad, Government Advocate for the
respondents-State.
I.A.No.7494/2015 in W.P.No.19715/2013 for stay. Heard counsel for the parties.
Writ petition are already admitted.
By this order we dispose the prayer for grant of interim relief.
The interim relief has necessitated because of the issuance of auction notice inviting tenders to grant sand quarry, which was earlier allotted to the petitioner in terms of agreement dated 30.03.2012. The term, no doubt, expired on 31.03.2014. Hence, that agreement by itself cannot be the basis to grant any interim relief.
The argument of the petitioner, however, is that the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner was to operate for a period of two years from the date of the execution, which means contract was valid upto 31.03.2014. But, in the intervening period because of Circular issued by the Government of India on 18.05.2012, petitioner was asked to stop the quarry pursuant to the notice dated 29.05.2012. The Circular issued by the Government of India was in furtherance of the Supreme W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015 2 Court decision dated 27.02.2012 in case of Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others (2012) 4 SCC 629, in particular paragraph 27 thereof. The petitioner eventually applied for grant of environmental clearance, which admittedly was issued 21.05.2013. Therefore, the period lost by the petitioner for perusing environmental clearance and also because of the involuntarily abandonment of quarry activities for a period 357 days, according to petitioner, must enure in favour of the petitioner and for which reason, the agreement period which expired on 31.03.2014, must be considered as having been extended commensurately.
The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court dated 23.11.2012 in case of Ravi Shankar Naik vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2013(1) MPLJ 298 in Writ Petition 21897/2011, in particular, in paragraph 3 whereof, which reads thus:
"3. Admittedly, there was no fault on the part of petitioner due to which he was stopped from operating the sand quarry. As already stated above, quarry lease granted to him was for a period of two years and he operated the same without any complaint till the passing of order dated 28.02.2009 by the Collector. The Collector had passed the order stopping the petitioner to operate the sand quarry in compliance of the interim order dated 19.02.2009 of the High Court in Writ Petition W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015 3 (PIL) No.1574/2008 which was finally dismissed on 29.09.2010. But, in the meantime, the remaining period of petitioner's quarry lease of two years expired.
It is well settled that "any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be contrary to the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', that an act of the court shall prejudice none", (See Anil Rai V State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, para 2).
Admittedly, no third party interest has been created on the land of which quarry lease was granted to the petitioner. The sand quarry has remained unoperated for the period for which the period of operation falls short of two years. The petitioner was deprived without his fault to operate the sand quarry for full period of quarry lease. In Beg Raj Singh V. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 726 the Supreme Court has held that where petitioner was wrongfully disallowed to operate the mining lease for the full lease period and the lease has remained unoperated and no third-party right is created, he must be allowed to operate the mining for the full period of lease subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. The present case is identical to the case of Beg Raj Singh". The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to similar relief as granted in the aforesaid case.
On a bare reading of the decision, it is obvious that the relief granted to the writ petitioner in that case was on the W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015 4 finding that prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner because of the order passed by the Court by invoking the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit". In the present case is not open for the petitioner to invoke that principle. In that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 27.02.2012, it was open for the parties to execute agreement in favour of the petitioner without the environmental clearance in that behalf. Notwithstanding that the Authority executed agreement in favour of the petitioner on 30.03.2012. The environmental clearance has been finally granted on 31.05.2013.
In our opinion, in the fact situation of the present case, the principle invoked in the aforesaid case will have no application.
The petitioner would then rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Doiwalal Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2007) 11 SCC 641, in particular paragraphs 38 to
40. Even the exposition of this case will have no application to the fact situation of the present case as the agreement itself could not have been executed in favour of the petitioner after the decision of the Supreme Court on 27.02.2012 sans the environmental clearance in that behalf. That is not the principle which came up for consideration W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015 5 before the Supreme Court in this decision. Besides, the question that we need to examine for disposing of interim relief is whether prima facie case is made out and at the same time whether any irreparable loss can be said to be caused to the petitioner.
It is rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner on his own made representation to the Collector to compensate him by paying Rs.1,43,57,201/-. If the loss or damage caused to the petitioner can be valued in term of money as has been done by the petitioner in communication dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure P/15), there is no question of granting him any interim relief with a view to stall the auction, which was determined on the basis of prevailing market rate of contract in the year 2014. Even in this count, the prayer for grant of interim relief deserves to be negatived.
As a result, application for stay is rejected while making it clear that any action taken by the respondents with regard to subject matter during the pendency of the petition will be subject to outcome of the further orders passed in this writ petition.
Besides, it will be open to the petitioner to participate in the auction process, if so advised and compete for grant of contract of sand quarry.
W.P.No.19715/2013 & W.P.No.1610/2015 6 Writ Petitions to proceed for final hearing as per its turn under appropriate caption.
We are informed that petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1610/2015 has filed stay application.
That be numbered and listed on 11.08.2015, as requested by the counsel for the petitioner.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (J.K. Maheshwari)
Chief Justice Judge
shukla