Patna High Court
M/S. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 February, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7785 of 2018
======================================================
M/s. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., a registered company having its registered
office at B-37, Ayodhya Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan through
one of its directors namely Kartik Rathi, S/o Shri Ajay Rathi R/O 3-B 22 23
Sukhadia Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Mines & Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Cum Commissioner, Department of Mines and
Geology Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Nalanda.
4. The Assistant Director of Mines, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7899 of 2018
======================================================
M/s. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. a registered company having its registered
office at B-37, Ayodhya Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan through
one of its directors namely Kartik Rathi S/o Shri Ajay Rathi R/o 3-B 22 23
Sukhadia Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Mines & Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Mines and
Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Banka.
4. The Mines Inspector Cum Competent Authority, Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7785 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA- 7
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7899 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
2/22
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA- 7
For the Mines : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal,
learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Spl. P.P. for
the Mines Department. The State is represented through G.A.-7.
2. Considering the identical nature of claim based
upon same set of facts raising identical issue, with the consent
of parties, both the writ petitions are being heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Notably, the petitioner in both the writ petition is
one and the same registered Company, who participated in the
auction, pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, in
relation to settlement of sand ghats at Nalanda and Banka
districts, hence two writ petitions are filed for identical reliefs;
hence for disposal of the cases, the Company is being referred
as petitioner.
4. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the concerned respondent to grant 82 days of
settlement for mining rights for the district of Banka and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
3/22
likewise additional 63 days for mining right for the district of
Nalanda with respect to the calendar year 2018. In the
alternative, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a direction upon
the concerned respondents to collect the balance of the
settlement amount from the petitioner for the year 2018, reduced
by a sum, which is payable cost, paid by the petitioner for those
aforenoted days when the petitioner has not been allowed to
perform mining activity without any rhyme and reason and
without any jurisdiction and authority in terms of Bihar Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules, 1972'). Apart from the reliefs aforenoted, the petitioner
has also prayed for additional consequential reliefs in para. 1 of
the writ petitions.
5. The short facts, which led to the filing of the writ
petitions are that the Government of Bihar in the Department of
Mines and Geology vide Notification No. 2887 dated
22.07.2014
expressed decision to invite tenders for settlement of
sand ghats located at different districts in the State of Bihar for
the period 2015-2019, which included sand ghats at Nalanda
and Banka district as well.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, NIT was
published for settlement of sand ghats. The petitioner, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
registered company, intending to participate in the settlement
process, submitted technical and financial bids. In the auction,
the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and,
accordingly, awarded settlement of sand ghats at Nalanda and
Banka districts, for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner deposited
the entire settlement amount for the year 2015 and likewise for
the year 2016 and 2017. The petitioner also deposited the first
installment of 50% of the settlement amount for the year 2018.
7. It would be worthwhile to mention that during
the aforenoted period of settlement, the State of Bihar vide
Notification No. 3018/M dated 10.10.2017 replaced the Rules,
1972 by the new Rules in purported exercise of powers under
Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
1957'). The petitioner and other similar set of settlees
approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17125 of 2017, along
with other writ petitions, challenging the validity of the entire
Rules stating it being violative of the provisions of the Act, 1957
and in the teeth of the settled principles of law that the right of
the petitioner, as a settlee, was governed by the Rules, 1972.
8. The learned Division Bench of this Court, prima
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
facie, on being satisfied the Rules suffered from severe legal
infirmities, vide its order dated 27.11.2017 stayed the entire
Rules and Regulations, in question, and directed that in the
meanwhile the Rules, 1972 would be operative. Despite the
aforesaid position, the respondent no.2 came out with different
orders reiterating and reproducing the impugned provision of
new Bihar Minor Mineral Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules, 2017').
9. The petitioner along with others preferred
interlocutory applications challenging the said new Orders
referring it to be a clandestine move of respondent no.2 to
overreach the orders of the Hon'ble Court. The learned Division
Bench of this Court once again vide order dated 04.12.2017
directed to stay all the orders passed by the respondent no.2 and
restrained the respondents from implementing any of the orders,
in question, as the learned Division Bench held it a case of
overreaching the order of this Court dated 27.11.2017.
10. It is also worthwhile to be noted that the
petitioner had earlier challenged the powers of the respondents
for fixing sale price of sand under Rule 48 of Rules, 1972, once
the settlement is granted to the petitioner, in C.W.J.C. No. 9908
of 2016 wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
its judgment/order dated 27.10.2016 has been pleased to allow
the writ petition holding the State respondents have no power to
fix the sale price of sand after settlement is awarded. The State
respondents challenged the said judgment/order before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) [Diary
No(s).22075 of 2017, which was also dismissed vide order
dated 08.09.2017, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-6 to
the writ petition. During exercise of challenge given to the new
Rules of 2017 by the petitioner and similarly such settlees, E-
challans downloading facilitation was disabled by the
respondent Department for different intervals.
11. Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned Advocate
for the petitioner adverting the aforesaid facts, further contended
that E-challans downloading facilitation was enabled only for
the purpose of supply of sand to the Bihar State Mining
Corporation alone, which was in direct conflict with the order of
this Court. Thus, the petitioners of batch of the writ applications
challenged the validity of new Rules, 2017 seeking a direction
upon respondent no.2 to ensure implementation of the order
dated 27.11.2017 and 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Division
bench of this Court. The learned Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 11.12.2017 directed the concerned department
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
to implement the earlier order of this Court. Upon the order
being passed by the learned Division Bench, the concerned
respondent disabled the E-challans downloading facilitation
from the Website. In the meanwhile, the respondents had
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special leave to
Appeal (C) No(s). 33129 of 2017, which came to be disposed of
vide order ated 15.12.2017 refusing to interfere with the order
dated 27.11.2017 and held that the issue would be decided by
this Court.
12. After the order being passed by this Court as
well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, over again on the
directives of respondent no.2, E-challans downloading
facilitation once again blocked without any prior notice or any
authority. This issue was again taken up by the learned Division
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15965 of 2017 and other
analogous cases wherein by order dated 19.12.2017 it has been
held that there existed all prohibitory orders against the
respondent no.2 in so far as violation of earlier orders passed in
the matter were concerned and the parties could approach this
Court in writ jurisdiction for all fresh actions of respondent nos.
2 to 4, in case it is in teeth of the earlier order so passed.
13. The respondent authorities did not mend their
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
ways and again proceeded to defy the order of the Hon'ble
Court and the entire mining activity of the petitioner and others
had been put on halt by way of arbitrary action, which led to
another round of litigation by filing C.W.J.C. No. 207 of 2018
and other analogous cases seeking a direction upon the
respondents to restore E-challans downloading facilitation
immediately. The petitioner and others categorically raised the
grievance that by way of disabling E-challans downloading
facilitation, the petitioner has already been made to suffer a
huge loss at the hands of the respondent department. The
petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction and authority of
respondent Department of Mines and Geology and its
authorities in compelling the petitioner to supply sand to the
Bihar State Mining Corporation in C.W.J.C. No. 19407 of 2017
and other analogous cases. Learned Court, however, on being
found, the respondents have already enabled the E-challans
downloading facilitation disposed of the writ petitions granting
liberty to the petitioner and similarly such other lease holders to
raise all such issues in another proceeding.
14. Mr. Kejriwal, learned Advocate for the
petitioner contended that notwithstanding the petitioner having
complied all the formalities in terms of law as well as NIT
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
meant for settlement of mining rights of sand for the district of
Nalanda and Banka for a period of five years from 2015 till
2019 had all the substantive rights to perform mining activity in
the entire districts without any hindrance. The issuance of transit
challans in terms of Rule 33 of Rules, 1972 is one of the most
important part of business of mining to be performed, as every
stock of sand released from mining site is to be accompanied by
such transit challans alongwith vehicle. The Transit challan is to
be verified by the respondent authorities and only upon
verification and satisfaction, the stock is to be allowed to move
further. Thus, in absence of transit challan no business could be
transacted. The respondent Department of Mines and Geology
came out with a new system of downloading of challan through
official Website of the Department. Such down loaded challans
had to be handed over to the vehicle carrying stock of sand. The
said system was introduced in the month of June, 2017 by the
Department. Once the petitioner had been granted settlement
and the petitioner had paid the required amount of settlement as
well as other statutory charges, the transit challans became the
authority of the petitioner to issue to the vehicle carrying
mineral. The respondent department or its authority did not
allow the petitioner to perform mining mining activity for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
period of 63 days by way of disablement of E-challans
downloading facilitation in the district of Nalanda and similarly
for a period of 82 days in the district of Banka. It is the admitted
fact that the petitioner has not been allowed to perform the
mining activity for the aforenoted period, as such the petitioner
has suffered a total loss of Rs.1,95,46,371.14 along with loss of
profit at the rate of 10% in the district of Nalanda. Likewise, a
total loss of Rs.9,36,84,172/- along with loss of profit at the rate
of 10% in the district of Nalanda.
15. Referring to the entire gamut of the fact,
learned Advocate for the petitioner thus contended that as a
consequence of act of omission and commission on the part of
the respondents, the fundamental rights granted to the petitioner
under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and
constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India are being infringed.
16. It is lastly contended that the period aforesaid
has already been passed and pursuant to an interim order dated
09.04.2019, this Court as an interim measure held the petitioner
entitled for interim relief for proper adjustment in the amount of
loss, which the petitioner has suffered in the year 2018, in the
amount of next installment for the year, 2019 without any
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
admission made on the part of the State and without prejudice to
his right and contention; hence, the interim order granted by this
Court may be made absolute to meet the ends of justice.
17. Per contra, learned Spl. P. P. for the Mines and
Geology Department has vehemently contended that the
submissions of non-mining activities/operations carried out by
respondents are false, as the petitioner had already excavated
1,73,87,800 cubic feet of sand till June, 2018 in the district of
Nalanda and 4,28,05,425 cubic feet of sand in the district of
Banka till June, 2018, which proportionately not less than of the
sand excavated by the petitioner in the preceding year and thus
they cannot claim of any loss incurred for 63 days in the district
of Nalanda and 82 days in the district of Banka. The petitioner
failed to hit the maximum excavation limit set by the
environmental clearance issued by the State Environmental
Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the
SEIAA') by significant margin in the preceding years while they
had ample opportunity to engage in mining activity in order to
ensure no losses are incurred.
18. The petitioner's claim of loss on account of
non-mining activities has not effected in terms of monetary loss.
The petitioner was also given the year wise settlement for five
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
years of calendar basis with a condition of SEIAA fixing the
capping limit for mineral excavation per year. Mr. Tiwari also
urged before this Court that calculation chart, as brought by the
petitioner, is also incorrect. The different heads under
calculations such as Income Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty and District
Mineral Foundation (DMF) are statutory and mandatory
deduction are payable by the settlees as per the Mining Rules.
19. This Court has given anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced on behalf of learned Advocate for the
respective parties and also meticulously perused the record. The
facts are not in dispute to the extent whereby the period, in
question, the E-challan downloading facilitation was blocked or
suspended. It is also admitted position that the transit challans or
E-challans is sine qua non and important part of business of
mining for transportation of sand, as every stock of sand
released by the settlee from sand ghat is to be accompanied by
such transit challans or E-challans along with vehicle and in
absence of E-challans, the stock cannot be allowed to move. The
Department of Mines and Geology itself introduced system of
downloading of challans through official Website of the
Department, which was an Online/Internet based operation
through which a settlee had to access Website to download as
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
many challans as needed by filling particulars and by forming
other necessary formalities. The downloaded challans had to be
handed over to the vehicle carrying stock of sand. The
disablement of E-challan downloading facilitation from the
official Website of the Department clearly disallowed the settlee
to perform mining activities and/or release of the stock of the
sand from the mining ghat to different places.
20. It would be also pertinent to note that once the
process of auction is completed and the person declared
successful bidder in the auction, deposited the entire settlement
amount in terms with the NIT and upon being final settlement is
made, he would have all the substantive rights to perform
mining activities in the area, in question, without any hindrance,
subject to the statutory restrictions. Any impediment and
hindrances causing prejudice and affecting the right of a settlee
without authority of law is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Time
without number, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a naked
and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law. Using the position
for something, for which it is not intended is nothing but an
abuse of the power.
21. True it is that an honest though an erroneous
exercise of power or an indecision is not an abuse of power. A
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
decision, action or instruction may be inconvenient or
unpalatable, but it would not be an abuses of power; albeit, an
abuse of power must be in respect of such an incident, which
would render the office holder unworthy of holding the said post
and it must entail adverse civil consequences. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw
Bros., reported in, (1992) 1 SCC 534 has observed that abuse of
power or mala fide exercise of power may arise due to
overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of
statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised
for extraneous or irrelevant considerations.
22. The Welfare State denotes a concept of
Government, in which the State plays a key role in the
protection and promotion of economic and social well being of
all its citizens. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides right
to all the citizens to engage in trade or business, subject to
reasonable restrictions.
23. A question was posed in the case of Shrilekha
Vidyarthi (Kumari) vs. State of U.P., reported in (1991) 1 SCC
212 as to whether guarantee of non-arbitrariness which is basic
to rule of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
stands excluded from the State action in contractual field. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
answer to this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that the Constitution does not envisage or permit unfairness in
State actions in any sphere of its activity, it would be alien to the
constitutional scheme to accept the argument of exclusion of
Article 14 in contractual matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further observed that while private parties are concerned with
their personal interest, the State while exercising its powers and
discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it,
for public good and in public interest, for, and impact of every
State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is
sufficient to import, at least, the minimal requirements of public
law obligations. Even in the actions of the State in contractual
matters, the obligation of a State is of public character and that
contractual obligation cannot divest the person aggrieved of the
guarantee under Article 14 of the non-arbitrariness at the hands
of the State in any of its actions.
24. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. (LPA No.1942 of 2016) where the Company
feeling aggrieved with the order of prohibition of Mining
operation for the months of July, August and September in terms
of the order passed by the State Environment Impact
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
Assessment Authority, apart from a further prohibition in mining
for period of 09.02.2016 to 01.04.2016, due to an order from
National Green Tribunal had approached before the learned
Single Judge with a prayer, inter alia, seeking direction to the
respondents not to charge the instalment payable by the
petitioner for the afore-noted period, in question, against grant
of work order for mining and transporting sand, as the petitioner
has been restrained from mining and transporting sand for such
period, had approached this Court. On being dissatisfied with
the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred
Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Division Bench of this Court
having elaborately discussed the matter and placing reliance
upon the report of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) has
held in its penultimate paragraph that there can be no manner of
doubt that when the respondents communicated the prohibitory
orders in the light of the orders passed by the State Level
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, it was incumbent
upon the respondents to also proportionately reduce the
instalment amount payable by the appellant, but the
respondents, having failed to do so, acted in a manner
detrimental to the interests of the appellant so far as its
contractual obligations are concerned. Viewed from this
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
perspective, the act of the respondents was definitely found to
be an arbitrary action, which cannot and does not stand the test
of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
25. The learned Division bench of this Court while
adjudicating the lis and answering the issue as to whether the
State, in changed circumstances, enjoy the liberty to unilaterally
alter the terms of a contract affecting, materially and
substantially, the rights of the private party, has painstakingly
answered elaborately that if the appellant entered into a solemn
contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and
the respondent acted upon it, the statutory corporation cannot be
allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury, flowing
from its unreasonable conduct, to the respondent. In such a
situation, the court is not powerless from holding the appellant
to its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus
directing it to perform its statutory duty.
26. This Court thinks it worth benefiting to
encapsulate some relevant paragraphs of the aforenoted decision
for proper appreciation of the matter in issue:
"25. The Supreme Court further held,
in Lotus Hotels (supra), that in the back drop of
incontrovertible fact situation, the principle of
promissory estoppel would also come into play
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
and placed reliance, in this regard, on the case of
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v.
State of U.P, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409,
wherein following observations were made;
"8. The true principle of
promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be
that where one party has by his words of
conduct made to the other a clear and
unequivocal promise which is intended to
create legal relations or affect a legal
relationship to arise in the future, knowing
or intending that it would be acted upon by
the other party to whom the promise is
made and it is in fact so acted upon by the
other party, the promise would be binding
on the party making it and he would not be
entitled to go back upon it, if it would be
inequitable to allow him to do so having
regard to the dealings which have taken
place between the parties, and this would
be so irrespective of whether there is any
pre-existing relationship between the
parties or not."
26. The concluding remarks, in Lotus
Hotels (supra), are very important, wherein the
Supreme Court held that if the appellant entered
into a solemn contract in discharge and
performance of its statutory duty and the
respondent acted upon it, the statutory corporation
cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable
conduct, to the respondent. In such a situation, the
court is not powerless from holding the appellant
to its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of
mandamus directing it to perform its statutory
duty. A petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution, would certainly lie to direct
performance of a statutory duty by "other
authority" as envisaged by Article 12 and,
therefore, the High Court was, therefore, fully
justified in issuing a writ of mandamus to disburse
the loan.
27. The relevant observations,
appearing in Lotus Hotels (supra), are reproduced
below;
"13. Now if appellant entered
into a solemn contract in discharge and
performance of its statutory duty and the
respondent acted upon it, the statutory
corporation cannot be allowed to act
arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury,
flowing from its unreasonable conduct, to
the respondent. In such a situation, the court
is not powerless from holding the appellant
to its promise and it can be enforced by a
writ of mandamus directing it to perform its
statutory duty. A petition under Article 226
of the Constitution would certainly lie to
direct performance of a statutory duty by
"other authority" as envisaged by Article
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
12."
28. In the present case, since the
appellant has not challenged the prohibitory order
restraining the mining operations for the months of
July, August and September, as passed by the State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, no
writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent
to allow the mining operations for the prohibited
months. It may also be pointed out here that it
would not be permissible nor would it be
advisable to extend the bid period from actual 45
months to the agreed period of 60 months
inasmuch as such an exercise by the writ Court, by
ignoring an expert opinion of State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority, would not be
proper. It is equally an admitted position that the
respondents cannot be faulted for subsequent
change of events since such events have been
occasioned by the orders of a Statutory Authority.
However, if the changed circumstances apply to
the appellant, it would equally apply to the
respondents as well; and it would, therefore, be
highly prejudicial to appellant if it were to be
saddled with the responsibility of paying the entire
bid money even if it has been given lesser period
of mining operations contrary to what had been
agreed upon. Hence, such an act, on the part of the
respondents, in not considering the representation
of the appellant for proportionate reduction of the
installments, is ex facie arbitrary, irrational,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
unreasonable and unjust. This aspect of the matter
has not been taken into account by the learned
single Judge, while passing the judgment and
order, under appeal. What prevailed upon the
learned single Judge was the order, dated
09.09.2016, passed in CWJC 14619 of 2016,
wherein, in a similar subject matter, a direction
was given that the petitioner should approach the
District Magistrate, Kaimur, who shall consider
and dispose of the representation of the petitioner
therein in accordance with law."
27. In the afore-noted settled legal position, now
coming to the case in hand, it is evident that the concerned
respondent Department has not come out with the case that
during the period, in which E-challan downloading facilitation
were disabled, the same was done on account of any
unavoidable reasons or pursuant to an order having sanction of
law. Once the respondent authorities admitted the position, this
Court has left with no option, but to direct the State respondents,
especially respondent no.2 to adjust the amount of loss
calculated for the days in question in the district of Nalanda and
Banka as adjusted against the next installment, as has been done
pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on
09.04.2019, hence the interim order stands absolute, subject to
the fresh calculation, qua the actual dates/period in which E-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7785 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
challan downloading facilitation were disabled. It is also made
clar that if there is any error in the calculation, as has been
stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.
2 to 4 only to the extent of Income Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty and
District Mineral Foundation (DMF) the respondent may make a
fresh calculation after giving proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner preferably within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
28. Both the writ petitions stand allowed.
29. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
