Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baljeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2014
Writ Petition No :: 1328 / 2013
Baljeet Singh Vs. State of MP and others
01.10.2014.
Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate, with Shri Parag
Tiwari for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the
State/respondents.
Challenging the order-dated 4.3.2011 - Annexure P/1 passed by Collector Chhatarpur, forfeiting a sum of `4,80,600/- on account of non-payment of installments of the tender submitted by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents, this writ petition has been filed.
For the purpose of quarrying of sand in village Hinauta, Tehsil Laundi measuring 4000 Hectares for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, tenders were floated. The petitioner submitted a bid and deposited an earnest money (security deposit) of `4,80,600/-. The bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted and a decision was taken to grant the quarry lease to the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile it seems that for part of the quarry in question bearing Khasra No. 495, certain dispute arose as to whether the same can be termed as a 'sand quarry' and, therefore, offered for quarrying or not? The matter travelled to the Collector, then to the Commissioner and finally as no decision was taken and the question as to whether the area can be offered for quarrying is still under dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that once there was a dispute as to whether the area could be granted for quarrying, the action of the Collector in forfeiting the amount of security is unsustainable.
2Learned Senior Advocate took us through the documents and other material to highlight the fact that the dispute with regard to feasibility of the area being permissible for quarrying was under
dispute and, therefore, the action taken for forfeiting the security amount is unsustainable.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, refuted the aforesaid and argued that under Rule 57 of the MP Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, a provision for appeal is available and, therefore, as a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned Deputy Advocate General further pointed out that before submitting the bid in accordance to the auction notice published, under Form No.15 Rule 36(2), the petitioner is required to inspect the quarry and only after satisfying that the area is available, the bid is submitted and now such an excuse with regard to the dispute in the area cannot be a ground for seeking exemption from forfeiture of the security amount.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
As far as the question of existence of alternate remedy is concerned, there is no dispute in accepting the aforesaid proposition of the learned Deputy Advocate General. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the given case, if it is found that no useful purpose would be served by relegating a person to seek the remedy available under the statute, and if the records indicate that the dispute is simple in nature and it can be adjudicated or decided based on the material available, discretion 3 can be exercised for deciding the matter in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. That being so, we propose to go into the merits of the matter, to explore the possibility of interfering into the matter.
Admittedly, the quarry lease was granted to the petitioner after his tender was accepted and he deposited the initial 30% of the bid amount. However, before he could deposit the subsequent amount, there was a dispute with regard to the area being available for quarrying and the documents - Annexures P/5 and P/6, indicate that the dispute was being adjudicated by the revenue courts - namely the Court of the Commissioner, Sagar Division and the Collector, Tikamgarh. It is found from these proceedings initiated at the instance of a third person that there is a question mark with regard to the area in question being available for quarrying and whether it can be given on lease as 'sand quarry'.
Even though the Commissioner in his order - Annexure P/5 remanded the matter back to the Collector, the order of the Collector dated 18.1.2011 - Annexure P/6 indicates that the Collector in the light of the cancellation of the tender in question, did not go into this dispute and directed for filing of the proceedings.
It is, therefore, clear that the question as to whether the area in question can be offered for 'sand quarry' itself is disputed and if faced with such a dispute, which is yet to be decided and which was pending consideration before the Collector even on 18.1.2011
- as is evident from Annexure P/6, there is no error on the part of 4 the petitioner in not depositing the requisite installments once it was found that he may not be able to carry out quarrying in the area concerned until and unless the dispute with regard to the area itself is not decided.
Under such circumstances, it was a fit case where once when the proceedings were closed and the dispute was not adjudicated, the Collector should have refunded the security amount, as the petitioner had shown justifiable reasons for not depositing the further installments.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the revenue in forfeiting the amount seems to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and, therefore, to that effect relief has to be granted to the petitioner.
As far as the objection of Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, with regard to Clause 5 of the Notice of auction - Annexure R/1 is concerned, the same pertains to availability of mineral, the quality of the mineral and various other facts and does not pertain to the dispute which was pending consideration before the Collector and the Commissioner.
In that view of the matter, finding that the fact about petitioner's right to security amount has been withheld in an arbitrary manner, we are inclined to interfere into the matter and do not deem it to be a fit case to relegate the petitioner to take recourse to the alternate remedy of appeal available.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order- dated 4.3.2011 - so far as it directs for forfeiture of `4,80,600/- is 5 concerned, is quashed and the aforesaid amount is directed to be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
CC as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aks/-