Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Golam Dastagir vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 March, 2022
March 7, 2022
ARDR
(15)
WPA 12474 of 2021
Sk. Golam Dastagir
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Santi Das,
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Suvoven Sengupta,
Mr. Subir Paul,
...for the State.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that being
the highest bidder in e-auction for grant of lease of minor
minerals and upon payment of one-third of the bid
amount, Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the
petitioner on 25th September, 2017. The petitioner
deposited the remaining bid amount in terms of notice
issued by the respondents on 29th November, 2017 as well
as in terms of Rule 10(2) of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016 on 27th December, 2017
which was received on behalf of the District Land & Land
Reforms Officer. The petitioner submits that the lease deed
could not be executed by the State respondents in view of
temporary suspension of execution of such lease by the
National Green Tribunal. The petitioner has prayed for
refund of the bid amount deposited by him before the
authority along with statutory interest thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on an order of a coordinate bench of this Court
passed on 18th September, 2020 on an identical issue in
WPA 6236 of 2020, the said order being affirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench by an order dated 24 th December,
2021 in MAT 1307 of 2021.
Placing reliance on the report in the form of affidavit
submitted by the State respondents, learned counsel for
the State respondents submits that though the Letter of
Intent was issued on 25th September, 2017, the petitioner
took no initiative for execution of the deed of lease despite
several notices issued upon him by the authority. In the
meantime, the order of the National Green Tribunal came
into operation and the State respondents were unable to
execute the lease. Had the petitioner taken appropriate
steps within the statutory period of time, the lease deed
could have been executed by the State respondents and
the respondents would have been in a position to collect
enormous royalty therefrom. The Government has suffered
heavy loss due to non-execution of the deed of lease on
time. As the deed could not be executed due to fault of the
petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the bid
amount. Learned counsel further submits that clause 8 of
the Letter of Intent indicates that the Letter of Intent shall
remain valid for a period of two months from the date of
its issuance and if the successful bidder is unable to fulfil
all the above conditions within this period, he may submit
an application addressed to the District Magistrate for
extension of time. No such extension was prayed for by the
petitioner. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is purely a
money claim which can be made before the appropriate
forum and the writ Court has no jurisdiction to deal with
such claim. Learned counsel, has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra
Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation
Limited and anr. vs. Shivani Engineering Industries
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 241 in support of his
contention.
The orders of the National Green Tribunal at
Annexure R/3 to the report submitted by the State
respondents demonstrate that the issue of illegal mining of
sand was under consideration of the Tribunal since 2015.
Despite such fact, the e-auction was floated by the
respondent authorities on 18th May, 2017 and the Letter of
Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25 th
September, 2017. It is admitted by the State respondents
in their letter issued to the petitioner on 11 th September,
2018 that the entire bid amount was deposited by the
petitioner on 27th December, 2017. The petitioner was
called upon to appear before the authority with all
necessary documents for execution of the lease deed on 8 th
September, 2018 despite the order of the National Green
Tribunal imposing suspension of mining activities passed
on 4th September, 2018. No time frame being mandated
for depositing the second and third installments by the
petitioner under Rule 10(2) of the West Bengal Minor
Minerals (Auction) Rules, 2016, the petitioner cannot be
held guilty of making delayed payment of the said amount,
more so, as the amount was accepted by the State
authorities without a demur.
The authority relied upon by the State respondents
deals with a fact situation where the incumbent did not
implement the revised project within two years from the
date of an agreement though it was put in permission of
the plot and granted permission to change the
manufacturing activity. There being no such non-
compliance by the petitioner in the present matter, the
ratio decidendi of the said judgment is not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The petitioner has claimed refund of the bid amount
deposited by him before the authority. It is a fact that the
deed of lease could not be executed due to the ban
imposed by the National Green Tribunal.
In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to
refund of the entire bid amount by the authority along
with statutory interest thereon, given the fact that the
amount has been lying with the authority for a
considerable period of time.
Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 12474 of
2021 is disposed of directing the third respondent to cause
refund of the entire bid amount along with statutory
interest thereon to the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of communication of this order.
However, there shall be no order as costs.
Since no affidavits are invited, the allegations
contained in this writ petition are deemed not to be
admitted.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
