Jharkhand High Court
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 3 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 270 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 271 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 272 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 274 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 275 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No. 276 of 2023
Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Appellant: M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Shilpi Sandil
Gadodia, Ankit Kumar, Advocates
For the State: Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
For Resp. No.6/SLEIAA:Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 03.10.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1) In this bunch of Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant, who is
common in all cases, has assailed the common judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge on 16.11.2023 in W.P. (C) Nos.3809/2021,
3810/2021, 3811/2021, 3880/2021, 3855/2021 and 3886/2021,
whereby, though the petitions filed by the petitioner-appellant were
allowed and directions were given to refund the security deposit and
40% of the highest bid amount of the petitioner, the learned Single
Judge refused to grant any interest to the petitioner on the said
amount to be paid by the State of Jharkhand.
2) The facts of the case are not disputed at this stage.
In terms of Rule 12 of the of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004, the respondent No.3 - Deputy
Commissioner, Godda, vide Public Notice dated 30th March, 2015,
invited applications for allotment/settlement of various Sand Ghats in
Godda district for the financial years 2015-16 to 2017-18. The
petitioner participated in the said auction process and was allotted
altogether 07 Sand Ghats including the Sand Ghats involved in the
present batch of Letters Patent Appeals. The petitioner deposited the
assigned security monies as well as the 40% of the highest bid
amount for the said Sand Ghats and was accordingly issued Letter of
Intent. In certain cases, the petitioner has initiated excavation of
sands, but in some cases, the process of mining had not started. In
the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, (2012) 4 SCC 629, held that
even where a mining lease is granted with respect of an area of land
less than five hectares, the environmental clearance is necessary.
The National Green Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.108/2015/EZ in
terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana (supra). The National
Green Tribunal directed the respondent No.6, i.e., State Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, to pass appropriate orders
in all such cases. Thereafter, the environmental clearances granted to
the petitioner were withdrawn and, therefore, the lease granted to the
petitioner for carrying out mining of sands was cancelled. The matter
would have ended there, however, the authority without any
justification came to the conclusion that the monies deposited by the
petitioner should be forfeited. While allowing the writ applications to a
limited extent, the learned Single Judge has came to a categorical
finding at paragraph 20 that since the environmental clearances for
the Sand Ghats were withdrawn/not granted pursuant to the aforesaid
order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Kolkata, the petitioner
cannot be held liable for the said situation. The learned Single Judge
has further held that the petitioner has submitted a response to the
show-cause notices explaining the allegations leveled against it,
however, the same was not considered by respondent No.3, rather
the said Authority passed the impugned order in a very cryptic
manner, which certainly suffers from violation of principles of natural
justice. The learned Single Judge further held that the entire exercise
of the respondent No.3 appears to be mere formality done with
preoccupied mind. The learned Single Judge relied upon the reported
case of New Horizon Limited and Another Vs. Union of India &
Others, (1995) 1 SCC 478, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the Government must have the freedom of contract, however, the
decision of the Government must not only conform to the Wednesbury
principle of reasonableness, but must also be free from arbitrariness,
biasness and mala fides. In that view of the matter, the learned Single
Judge held that the petitioner is entitled to refund of security deposit
and proportionate/total deposited bid amount for the period for which
he could not able to excavate sands in view of the order passed by
the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.108/2015/EZ. However, the
learned Single Judge did not rely upon the judgment of Union of
India Vs. Vertex Broadcasting Company Private Limited, (2015)
16 SCC 198, and came to the conclusion that neither the State
Government nor the petitioner was at fault, rather the petitioner was
prevented from mining sands in the Sand Ghats in question in
pursuant to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge did not grant any interest on the
amount to be refunded to the petitioner.
3) The order of the learned Single Judge appears to be
paradoxical in view of the fact that at one stage the learned Single
Judge is quoting the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness and
requirements of orders to be free from arbitrariness on the part of the
authorities, on the other hand, he is saying that it is not the fault of the
State Government. Is it not the fault of the State Government or the
district authority (respondent No.3) in forfeiting the security deposit
and 40% of the bid amount? Had the respondent No.3 acted in a bona
fide manner and taken a decision which could not be held to be
arbitrary or cryptic, then the entire litigations would not have resulted
which consumed a lot of judicial time. Not only that, the party was also
put to harassment by running to the Court and, therefore, we are of
the opinion that in this case where the action of respondent No.3 has
been found to be arbitrary and mala fide, interest should be granted
on the amount so ordered to be refunded to the petitioner, that too,
when the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding arbitrariness
on the part of the respondents-authorities have not been challenged
by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in any forum which goes to show that
the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have accepted the correctness of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
4) We, therefore, direct that the impugned orders in all these six
cases are hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is also
entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the
order of forfeiture till actual payment of money/monies.
5) Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent,
with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioners by the
respondent No.3, within a period two months hence.
6) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
7) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/MM
