Jharkhand High Court
Md. Siddique Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2021
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2013
Md. Siddique Alam, son of Md. Nizamuddin, resident of village Khiri
Band, P.O. Khiri Band, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur (Bihar)
....... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.
3.District Mining Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.
4. Assistant Mining Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.
..... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Ms. Aakansha Mittal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manav Poddar, A.C to A.A.G-I
------------------------
9/Dated 16th December, 2021
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder, the following reliefs have been sought for:
"(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for proportionate reduction of the bid amount pertaining to Sand Ghats allotted in favour of the petitioner, specially in view of the fact that the petitioner was unable to lift sand due to imposition of illegal and arbitrary condition, restricting transportation of excavated sand only within Godda District and because of imposition of another condition relating to lifting and loading of sand in the Sand Ghats 2 by providing therein that no machine shall be used for lifting and loading of sand;
(b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction on the respondents, particularly Respondent no.4, not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for realization of the alleged bid amount pertaining to the Sand Ghats allotted in favour of the petitioner until the representation filed by the petitioner for payment of proportionate bid amount is considered and decided by speaking reasoned order by the Respondent no.2; and
(c) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that, in pursuant to the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2004'), in view of the provision as under Rule 12 thereof which provides provision of settlement of Sand Ghats which were vested under Gram Sabha where the said Sand Ghats were located or situated. Subsequently the provision of Rule 12 has been amended by virtue of notification dated 25.04.2011 to the effect that all the Sand Ghats will not be settled by public auction. The concerned competent authority of the district Godda vide its letter no.318 dated 24.05.2011 published a notice for public auction for settlement of approximately fifty Sand Ghats in the district of Godda. The writ petitioner had participated and declared to be successful in respect of the Sand Ghats namely; (i) Hanwara Sand Ghat (ii) Sahikita Sand Ghat (iii) Narottampur Sand Ghat (iv) Kala Dumaria Sand Ghat (v) 3 Mahesh Tikri Sand Ghat (vi) Khurd Dumaria Sand Ghat and (vii) Parasia Sand Ghat. The writ petitioner, although, had been declared to be successful for lifting sand from seven Ghats as referred in the preceding paragraph but in the meanwhile, the competent authority of the State Government came out with a restriction clause on the transportation of excavated sand outside the district of Godda by a general notice dated 14.06.2011.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that due to such restriction imposed by the public notice the petitioner has suffered a lot, although, he has already deposited the required security deposit money for the same but since he has not been allowed to lift, he has suffered financial loss.
3. Mr. Manav Poddar, learned A.C to A.A.G-I appearing for the State has submitted that by virtue of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.170 of 2012 (Panchanand Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand and others), such restriction of lifting sand outside the district which was notified by the public notice dated 14.06.2011 has already been recalled and as such now there is no restriction upon the transportation of sand outside the jurisdiction of the concerned district. But, however, the restriction was prevailing for the period from September, 2011 to June, 2013.
4. Upon such submission, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of such restriction, the writ petitioner is entitled for proportionate reduction in the bid amount which has already been deposited in part before the concerned authority and to that effect representation has already been made but no decision has been taken.
4
5. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that some of the amount has been adjusted towards the bid amount.
6. Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner has ventilated his grievance by filing a representation before the concerned authority on the basis of the admitted fact that in the public notice there was no restriction/imposition of transportation of sand outside the district and in the meanwhile, the said restriction has already been lifted and in that view of the matter, the representation has been filed before the concerned authority for adjudicating the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjustment of the amount from the bid amount. Therefore, the respondent authorities are required to take decision.
7. In view thereof, the writ petitioner is at liberty to file representation giving therein details of his claim along with all supporting documents and the facts before the concerned competent authority i.e. the District Mining Officer, Godda within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The concerned authority shall take a decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of such representation.
8. This Court makes it clear that this Court has not entered into the claim of the parties.
9. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of.
10. Consequently, I.A. No.1311 of 2014 for stay also stand disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/