Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that in light of the new sand policy, 2013 the respondent Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar (herein after referred to as the "respondent Mines Department") had issued a notification dated 22.07.2014 by which criteria and procedure for settlement of sand mines for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019 was published in the official gazette. The State Government had then, in exercise of its power conferred by section 15 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, had amended the Bihar Minor & Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 to bring it in consonance with the new sand policy, 2013 and the amendment had come into effect from 11.08.2014. In view of the fact that the settlement of the earlier successful bidders was in light of the aforesaid policy of the State Government, an advertisement was published on behalf of the Mines & Geology Department for settlement of sand ghats by auction for a period of five years Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 i.e. from 01.02.2015 to 31.12.2019. The settlement of the successful bidders ended on 31.12.2019 and for the period 2013-19, private respondent no. 8 was the settlee for the district of Aurangabad. In the meantime, the State Government formulated the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, 2019 which was notified on 14.08.2019 and was made applicable with immediate effect. The respondents then came out with the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 which was published in the gazette on 17.09.2019. The respondents had then published a notice inviting e-auction for settlement of 40 sand ghats in the district of Aurangabad. The e-auction was held on 26.12.2019 and the auction of 16 sand ghats was finalized. The petitioner had also participated in the auction process and was declared highest bidders "for Aurangabad Sone sand ghat No. 32". The Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad had then issued letter dated 30.12.2019, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.

57. Therefore, the manner of identifying the Sand Ghats/ Blocks cannot be accepted as being environmentally sound which is the object of the SSMMG-2016 being the only guideline applicable at that time.

This position is further strengthened when, even according to the State, the entire exercise for identifying the Sand Ghats was undertaken in terms of the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, 2019 which primarily deals with the procedures for identification of Sand Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 Ghats after its physical identification under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 5 of the said Policy and also matters relating to its bidding. The exercise also violates the very object of preparing a DSR as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with auction notices in respect of auction proposed by the Government of Haryana in respect of the extraction of minor minerals, boulders, gravel and sand quarries for an area not exceeding 4.5 ha in each case in the districts of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar and quarrying of minor minerals above 5 ha in Bhiwani district and stone and sand mines in the district of Mohindergarh, etc., by circumventing the EIA Notification 14.09.2006 in breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 ha against which no EIA was required to be undertaken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that there was no material to conclude that such mining would not cause environmental degradation or threat Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 to the biodiversity or destroy riverine sites of the river. It was further noted as under:

sued for the sand mining projects in Geruwariver in District-Godda. In pursuance of the order dated 23.01.2018, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 stating in para- Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 graph-5 that the Assistant Mining Of- ficer, Godda (the respondent no. 5) vide letter no. 269/M dated 05.02.2018, informed the Member Secretary of SEIAA, Jharkhand (re- spondent no.3) that no Environment Clearance is being given to any Sand Mining Project in River Geruwa in the District of Godda as there is no sand ghat settlement in the said river.

14. This Court, at this juncture, deem it appropriate to refer to clause 10 (ii) of the Tender Document in question which clearly states that the mining plan is required to be prepared and endorsed by the department as per the prevailing rules by means of an agency and the expenditure meted out shall be realized from the concerned settlees. This Court, thus, finds that as per the provision contained in clause 10 (ii) of the Tender Document as also as per clause 17 & 23 of the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 2019 as also Rules 17(4), 18(2) and 29(A)(1)(e) of the Rules, 2019, the primary responsibility to prepare mining plan and obtain environmental clearance is that of the State Mining Department. It is thus clear that the State Mining Department has miserably failed to comply with its statutory obligations not only under the Tender Document but also under the Act, 1957, Rules, 2019 and the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, 2019. This Court also finds that the respondent-State/the respondent Mines Department had been extending the settlement period of the sand ghats qua the existing settlees in the State of Bihar from time to time and in fact the settlement period of the existing settlees which was to expire on 31.12.2019 was extended for the very first time, by a letter dated 27.12.2019, issued by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Bihar, prior to even accepting the security deposit to the tune of Rs. 3,20,50,000/- and other amounts from the petitioner herein for the purposes of settlement of the sand ghats for a period of five years with effect from 01.01.2020 as per clause-9 of the tender document, hence it is clear that the intention of the respondent-State was deceitful and dishonest from the very inception. In case the respondent-State/ the respondent Mines Department knew that neither the work order Patna High Court CWJC No.2787 of 2020 dt.16-12-2021 could be issued to the petitioner nor the mining lease could be executed in his favour, it should not have accepted the aforesaid amount from the petitioner herein. It is a trite law that a wrong doer ought not be permitted to make profit out of his own wrong. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447, paragraph nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16 whereof are reproduced herein below:-