[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
M/S Siyaram Construction vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8473 of 2023
======================================================
M/s Siyaram Construction through its partner Amit Kumar, Gender-Male,
aged about 40 years, S/o Late Birendra Singh, Resident of Lakhibagh, P.s.-
Muffasil, Manpur, District Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Commisioner
and Mines Geology Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The General Manager, BSMC, Ltd.
3. The Driector Mines-cum-CEO, BSMC, Ltd.
4. The Administrative Office BSMC, Ltd.
5. The Mining Development Officer, Gaya.
6. The District Transport Officer, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA-7)
For the B.S.M.C. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Mines Dept. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for the Mines Department.
2. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel for the Mines
Department has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain versus Union
of India and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2510 and
submitted that there is an alternative remedy of appeal and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2023 dt.02-12-2025
2/6
therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained on the ground
of alternative remedy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
since the principle of natural justice has not be followed the
present writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable and he cannot
be asked to go in appeal.
4. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"1. For issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the
order dated 06.03.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.-2
vide letter No.-398 to the previous concession holder of Cluster-61
(Sobh Sand Ghat), Gaya i.e. in the name of Dhiraj Kumar by
which penalty of Rs. 01,81,72,195/- has been imposed on the
petitioner under rule 56(2) of Bihar Minerals (Concession,
Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2019 Amended 2021 for illegal generation of E-Challan through
his User ID by which 13663.77 MT of sand was illegally excavated
from other places and subsequently excavated sand was sold which
comes under the ambit of illegal Mining and also caused damage
to the environment.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ for direction to
the respondent authorities to give permission for mining on
Cluster-61 (Sobh Sand Ghat), Gaya for further 26 days because
the petitioner had having permission of mining on the said Ghat
for the period of 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023, but vide annexure-01
the User I.D of the petitioner was on blocked by the respondents
06.03.2023
and after that the petitioner did not do any mining
operation on the said Ghat since 06.03.2023 till 31.03.2023 which
caused heavy financial loss to the petitioner or an alternative the
respondent authorities to refund the amount of 26 days mining
which has already been deposited to the respondent authorities by
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2023 dt.02-12-2025
4. That the Bihar State Mining Corporation
(hereinafter referred as BSMC) had published a tender for
selection of contractors for operation of sand Ghats/Cluster in the
District of Gaya in year 2022 in which petitioner's firm namely
"M/s Siyaram Construction" had participated in a tender process
for sand Ghats bearing cluster 61 Gaya.
5. That the reserve price of cluster 61 Gaya was Rs.
54,96,168.00/- against which petitioner's firm had quoted
60,45,785.00/- and petitioner's firm declared successful bidder
consequently a work order was issued vide letter No. 25 dated
04.01.2023 and subsequently on 06.01.2023 the petitioner started
mining on the Cluster-61 Sobh Sand Ghats, Gaya.
6. That after deposit of the first installment by the
petitioner's firm, mining activities and sell of sand was started.
Subsequently petitioner's firm also deposited the second
installment of royalty.
7. That all of sudden on 06.03.2023 the user ID of the
petitioner was arbitrarily blocked by the respondent corporation
and after enquiry on 13.03.2023 the petitioner came to know that
vide letter No. 398 dated 06.03.2023 issued to one Dhiraj Kumar
who was the previous concession holder of the said Sand Ghats,
the User ID of the petitioner have been blocked for the allegation
by Misusing his User ID illegally extracted 13,663.77 MT of sand
from other place and for that Rs. 1,81,72,195/- has been imposed
to him and also petitioner was directed to deposit the same within
24 hours in the account of respondent corporation.
8. That annexure No. 02 issued by respondent No. 02
in which it is stated that a enquiry team went to the cluster-61 sobh
sand Ghat, Gaya for inspection on 26.02.2023 and 27.02.2023.
The said inspection conducted in absence of petitioner without
giving any notice to him.
9. That the above stated inspection was conducted in
most illegal manner which resulted into the submission of illegal
enquiry report to the corporation and thereafter the petitioner was
penalized and his User ID was blocked and the petitioner further
directed to pay Rs. 1,81,72,195/- as penalty imposed to the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2023 dt.02-12-2025
10. That on 13.03.2023 the petitioner gave
representation to respondent No. 02 against the arbitrary action of
above said inspection team with regard to his blocked User ID
which was blocked by the corporation without giving any
information to the petitioner but no action has been taken by the
respondent authorities, itself shows grave violation of natural
justice by the hand of respondent authorities.
11. That on 14.03.2023 the petitioner submitted a
detailed explanation to respondent No. 01 in regard to allegation
of so-called irregularities by the hand of the petitioner but till date
no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. This
resulted in the infringement petitioner's fundamental right.
12. That furthermore, insofar as Rule 56 is concerned,
it is submitted that the same can be invoked only when minerals
are excavated without any mineral concession. It is not the case of
the BSMC that the petitioner has excavated sand without any valid
authority. Hence, respondents have wrongly invoked Rule-56.
13. That on 26.02.2023 and 27.02.2023 the inspection
team mechanically and casually inspected the cluster-61 sobh sand
Ghat, Gaya and wrongly came to a conclusion that mining has
been done by the petitioner on other place instead of allocated
area of cluster-61. More so inspection team did not make any
communication to the petitioner for assuring the petitioner's
presence during inspection and arbitrarily submitted a report
caused imposition of Rs 1,81,72,195/- as penalty and respondent
corporation also did not take any step on the representations filed
by the petitioner for a fresh inspection on cluster-61 Sobh Sand
Ghat, Gaya in his presence only to reveal the reality.
14. That the casual approach of the respondents be
easily determined from undisputed fact that impugn letter has been
issued in the name of the licensee against whom concession license
was issued prior to the issuance of concession license in the favour
of petitioner."
5. The Mines Department has filed its counter affidavit
and has submitted that the impugned order should not be interfered
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2023 dt.02-12-2025
as it is based on the inspection report and the penalty imposed is
just and proper.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of
the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the ex-
parte inspection was done on 26.02.2023 and 27.02.2023 and
thereafter the penalty has been calculated. The petitioner was not
asked to be there at the time of inspection i.e. the inspection was
not done in presence of the petitioner or his representative.
Thereafter, no show-cause was given to the petitioner and the
petitioner has not been heard before the imposition of such a huge
penalty.
7. In my opinion, the inspection should have been done
in presence of the petitioner or his representative. Moreover, after
the inspection no show-cause has been issued to the petitioner and
the petitioner has not been heard before the impugned order
imposing penalty was passed.
8. In these circumstances, this application is allowed and
the order dated 06.03.2023 by which penalty of Rs. 1,81,72,195/-
has been imposed is, hereby, quashed and the inspection is held to
be illegal.
9. This application stands allowed with liberty to the
State that in case it wants to proceed against the petitioner afresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2023 dt.02-12-2025
then it shall be done from the stage of inspection in accordance
with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.12.2025
Transmission Date
