Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: second highest bidder in Katyayni Contractor Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 17 May, 2024Matching Fragments
10. He further submitted that the petitioner had submitted his application for release of environmental clearance for proposed Bhadhokara, Block No.10 and thereafter by letter No.56 dated 06.06.2017 and letter No.92, dated 27.06.2017, the High Court CWJC No.9814 of 2022 dt.-17-05-2024 environmental clearance for the proposed Bhadhokara stone mining project (Block No.10) were issued in favour of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, on 24.06.2017 with reference to letter No.276, dated 25.03.2017, letter No.247, dated 20.03.2017 etc., a letter was issued to the petitioner with respect to delay in execution of lease deed and the petitioner was sought for an explanation as to why the interest which was to be paid by the respondent authorities to the second highest bidder for late return of their earnest deposit money be not be recovered from the petitioner and in pursuance of which the petitioner gave his application to the District Magistrate, Nawada on 30.06.2017 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) explaining his position stating therein that he had already deposited Rs.50,00,000.00 towards the first installment by a demand draft on 28.03.2017 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the above-said lease hold area and found that a huge part of the said lease hold area had already been mined out illegally since the date of auction till 17.07.2017 and a huge quantity of stone mineral had already been extracted and disposed of illegally as will be apparent from the mining plan itself and hence he gave an application on 17.07.2017 (Annexure 5 to the writ application) to the District Magistrate, Nawada, stating therein all the facts and High Court CWJC No.9814 of 2022 dt.-17-05-2024 circumstances and prayed to reduce the proportionate amount of auction equivalent to the extracted stone minerals in between the above said period.
11. He further informed that with regard to above illegal extraction of minerals, a complaint was also lodged by the District Mining Officer, Nawada to the office in-charge of Muffasil Police Station, Nawada contained in letter No.583 dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure 6 to the writ application). Learned counsel for the petitioner further informed that in spite of the admitted position that vide Memo No.545 dated 27.07.2017 an order to recover the amount of interest payable to the second highest bidder from the petitioner was passed on 22.08.2017 (Annexure 7 to the writ application) and failure to which, his "In Principal Sanction Order" shall be cancelled. The Assistant Director, Mines, Nawada, contrary to said letter, directed the petitioner to deposit the first installment by 31.08.2017 to get the lease deed executed, otherwise, his settlement approval would be cancelled.
23. The petitioner was declared highest bidder on 13.12.2015 and thereafter 'In Principle Sanction Order' was granted to him after approval by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nawada on 17.03.2015. The mining plan submitted by the petitioner was approved on 21.05.2015 and thereafter the petitioner could obtain environmental clearance on 06.06.2017, duly issued by the (SEIAA,Bihar). The petitioner deposited rupees fifty lacs towards first instalment by demand draft on 28.03.2017. The petitioner had deposited the amount of first instalment on 28.03.2017, the District Magistrate, Nawada issued letter dated 13.06.2017, seeking explanation from the petitioner, as to why, the interest, which was to be paid by the respondent authorities to the second highest bidder for late return of earnest money could not be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the said show cause notice, submitted his detailed reply on 17.07.2017, informing the District Magistrate, Nawada that already large quantity of stone minerals has been excavated, and in this regard, complaint has already been submitted by the District Mines Officer Nawada to the office in charge of Muffasil P.S Nawada on High Court CWJC No.9814 of 2022 dt.-17-05-2024 02.08.2017 and sought to reduce the amount proportionately. The petitioner has also given information that subsequent to his reply, the local police has lodged an FIR on 02.08.2017, as would appear from letter No.583 dated 02.08.2017. In spite of the above fact, it is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner was again issued show cause, that interest which was required to be paid on the earnest money deposited by the second highest bidder could only be paid on account of delay in making payment of the first instalment by the petitioner and on this ground, vide Memo No.545 dated 27.07.2017, another show cause has been issued to the petitioner, as to why, the lease be not cancelled. Subsequent to the said notice dated 27.07.2017, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.08.2017 by the Assistant Director, Mines, Nawada directing the petitioner to deposit the first instalment by 31.08.2017 to get the lease deed executed. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have given the exact figure with respect to the amount of first instalment which was required to be deposited by the petitioner in compliance of several notices issued to the petitioner for execution of lease deed in accordance with the provision of Bihar Mineral Concession Rules, 1972. The petitioner had filed a representation dated 20.07.2018 in response to a letter no.611 High Court CWJC No.9814 of 2022 dt.-17-05-2024 dated 21.06.2018 and on 16.03.2019, which was received in the office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology on 29.03.2019 by reiterating reasons and circumstances why the petitioner has not been able to deposit the entire amount of instalment. The petitioner in his representation has given information that substantial amount of minerals has been excavated from Block 10, for which "In Principal Sanction Order" has been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that in the same vicinity with respect to Block No.5 of Mauza, Bhakadkora, the case was referred to a committee, constituted by the Additional Chief Secretary, for inspecting the said block.
24. The petitioner has claimed parity that similar treatment be given to the petitioner to determine the quantity of stone excavated from Block 10, as on the recommendation of the committee, the proportional award had been reduced with respect to block No.5. The order passed against the petitioner to recover the amount of interest payable to the second highest bidder without adopting the said measure under the threat that in case of failure the settlement lease cannot be executed, requires to be interfered with. It is the admitted case of the parties that the environmental clearance was granted to the petitioner vide letter no.56 dated 06.06.2017 and letter no.92 dated 27.06.2017. High Court CWJC No.9814 of 2022 dt.-17-05-2024 The petitioner was directed to deposit first instalment vide letter dated 07.10.2017 and letter dated 21.06.2017 for execution of lease deed. The petitioner failed to execute lease deed as only 1.5 crores was paid as the first installment. The said amount has been admitted by the respondents in paragraph no.15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2. Conditional letter No.605 dated 22.07.2019 was issued to the petitioner that in case he fails to comply with the requirement, the sanction order of settlement for Block No.10, Nawada shall be cancelled. The petitioner replied on 22.08.2019 to the District Magistrate but without considering the explanation given by the petitioner from time to time, the sanction order was cancelled and the same was affirmed by the revisional authority vide Memo No.766 dated 09.09.2019, as contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition.