[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nagendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10740 of 2025
======================================================
Bimal Kumar Son of Shyam Sundar Yadav, Resident of Kurji More, Sadaquat
Ashram, P.S. Digha, District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna 800001.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner Mines, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-
800001.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram.
5. The Mineral Development Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7128 of 2025
======================================================
Nagendra Kumar Son of Mudrika Rai Resident of New Gosai Tola, Sultanpur
Road, Dr. D.Ram, DAV Public School, Ward no. 20, Danapur Khagaul, P.O.
and P.S. - Danapur, District-Patna-801503.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna. 800001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Cum Commissioner Mines, Department of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 800001.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Bhojpur.
5. The Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
In C.W.J.C. No.10740 of 2026
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
2/29
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : S.C.-26
For the Mines Department: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
In C.W.J.C. No.7128 of 2026
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : G.A.-7
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-04-2026
Since both these cases involve similar factual
position and questions, they have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In these cases, primarily the petitioners have
challenged the orders passed by the respective District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, by which the security deposit of the
petitioners for settlement of sand ghats have been forfeited
under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention
of Illegal Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and the in-
principal work orders have been revoked on the ground that the
petitioners have not deposited their respective first installment
of the royalty.
3. For convenience, the prayer made in both the
cases are being reproduced herein-below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
3/29
Re:- C.W.J.C. No.10740 of 2025
"(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari for quashing memo no. 758
dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure-18) issued by the
Respondent Collector, Rohtas, whereby and
whereunder the security deposit of Rs.
8,97,34,500/- (Rupees Eight Crores, Ninety
Seven Lakhs, Thirty Four Thousand and Five
Hundreed Only) furnished by the petitioner for
settlement of Rohtas Sand Ghat No. 13 has been
forfeited under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal
Transportation and Storage) Rules 2019 and the
in-principal work order contained in letter
no.4491 dated 26.11.2022 has been revoked on
the ground that the petitioner has not deposited
the first installment of the royalty and
commenced operation of the sand ghat.
(ii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondents to refund the security deposit of Rs.
8,97,34,500/- deposited by the petitioner for
settlement of Rohtas Sand ghat No.13 since the
contract between the petitioner and the
Department of Mines and Geology stands
frustrated due to unforeseen events which have
occurred after formation of the contract,
rendering its performance impossible and
fundamentally different from what the parties
originally intended.
iii. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold
that the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
4/29
the entire settlement amount when the mineral
potential of the sand ghat has been reduced that
too for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
iv. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold
that a sand ghat cannot be settled and allowed
to be operated without there being
replenishment study of the year 2023 as
contemplated under the Enforcement &
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020.
v. To award any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is found entitled in the facts and the
circumstances of the case."
Re:- C.W.J.C. No.7128 of 2025
(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari for quashing memo no. 1919
dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure 18) issued by the
Respondent Collector, Bhojpur, whereby and
whereunder the security deposit of Rs.
2,00,47,500/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Only) furnished by the
petitioner for settlement of Bhojpur Sand Ghat
No. 01 has been forfeited under Rule 28(1) of
the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019
on the ground that the petitioner has not
deposited the first installment of the royalty and
commenced operation of the sand ghat.
ii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondents to refund the security deposit of Rs.
2,00,47,500/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Only) deposited by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
5/29
petitioner for settlement of Bhojpur Sand ghat
No. 01 since the contract between the petitioner
and the Department of Mines and Geology
stands frustrated due to unforeseen events which
have occurred after formation of the contract,
rendering its performance impossible and
fundamentally different from what the parties
originally intended.
iii. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold
that the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay
the entire settlement amount when the mineral
potential of the sand ghat has been reduced that
too for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
iv. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold
that a sand ghat cannot be settled and allowed
to be operated without there being
replenishment study of the year 2023 as
contemplated under the Enforcement &
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020.
v. To award any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is found entitled in the facts and the
circumstances of the case."
4. The Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, floated tenders for e-auction of sand
ghats in different districts of the State including Rohtas Sand
Ghat No.13 and Bhojpur Sand Ghat No.01, which are subject
matter of these two writ petitions. The petitioners in both these
cases emerged as the highest bidder for Rohtas Sand Ghat No.
13 and Bhojpur Sand Ghat No. 01 respectively. The reserve
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
6/29
price of Rohtas Sand Ghat No.13 was Rs.15,60,60,000/- against
which the petitioner - Bimal Kumar quoted Rs.35,89,38,000/-
and the reserve price of Bhojpur Sand Ghat No.01 was
Rs.7,29,00,000/- against which the petitioner - Nagendra Kumar
quoted Rs. 8,01,90,000/-. Thereafter, both the petitioners
deposited the requisite security deposit i.e. 25% of the
auction/bid amount, after adjustment of earnest money deposit.
5. Consequently, respective in-principle work
orders were issued in favour of the petitioners by the concerned
authorities and both the petitioners submitted the required
mining plans, which were approved by the competent authority.
After approval of the Mining Plans, both petitioners approached
the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
for issuance of Terms of Reference and further environmental
clearance, which were granted to them.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that since the
mineral potential of the sand ghats had reduced considerably
considering the fact that there was no replenishment of sand
during the monsoon season of the year 2023, the petitioners
were reluctant to commence mining operations at their
respective sand ghats, as according to the petitioners, the same
would have caused heavy financial losses to the petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
7/29
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that
after the monsoon season of 2023, there was no sufficient
replenishment of sand, resulting in substantial reduction in the
mineral potential of the respective sand ghats. Further, no
replenishment study was conducted after the monsoon season of
2023, although such exercise is mandatory under the
Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020
(EMGSM, 2020), particularly for assessing actual replenishment
and sustainable extraction. The petitioner - Nagendra Kumar,
upon learning about the reduced availability of sand, addressed
a representation dated 22.09.2023 to the Member Secretary,
SEAC, requesting that the environmental clearance be granted
only after physical verification of the sand ghat but despite the
aforesaid representation, the environmental clearance was
granted to the petitioners without proper consideration of the
issue of non-replenishment and reduced mineral potential.
8. According to the petitioners, at the time of
participating in the auction, they had inspected the respective
sand ghats and found sufficient sand availability but the
depletion in mineral potential occurred only thereafter, during
the period which was consumed in obtaining approvals and
clearances and such depletion may have occurred due to lack of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
8/29
replenishment during monsoon and/or illegal or excessive
mining by prior operators or third parties. It is the case of the
petitioners that they, under pressure, from the mining authorities
proceeded further and applied for Consent to Establish (CTE)
and Consent to Operate (CTO) from Bihar State Pollution
Control Board.
9. It is also the case of the petitioners that they
did not commence mining operations even after obtaining
necessary permissions since their consistent stand is that the
actual mineral potential had been seriously reduced due to
absence of post-monsoon replenishment. Further, the petitioners
received several letters from the respondent authorities for
making the payment of first installment in lieu of mining lease
granted in their favour but they did not pay the required
payment and ultimately, vide impugned orders the security
deposits of the petitioners have been forfeited by the
respondents under Rule 28(1) of the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2019 on the ground that the petitioners did not
deposit the first installment of royalty and had not commenced
operation of the sand ghats.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
9/29
that the impugned orders forfeiting the security deposits of the
petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law in view
of the fact that there had been no adequate replenishment of
sand after monsoon 2023 and no fresh replenishment study of
the respective sand ghats had been conducted in terms of the
guidelines of the E.M.G.S.M., 2020. He further submits that the
actual mineral potential of the respective sand ghats had
materially reduced after the auction and before the petitioners
could even commence the operation of mining on the sand
ghats.
11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners had already undertaken all
required compliance and were not responsible for the depletion
of the availability of sand in the sand ghats.
12. It is submitted that the petitioners have been
proceeded against merely on the allegation that they did not
deposit the first installment of royalty/settlement amount and
did not commence operation of the respective sand ghats. On
this ground alone, the respondents invoked Rule 28(1) of the
2019 Rules, along with certain clauses of the tender document,
and proceeded to forfeit the security deposits of the petitioners.
13. It is the categorical submission of learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
10/29
counsel for the petitioners that Rule 28(1) of the 2019 Rules will
not apply in the present case since the said provision forms part
of Chapter IV of the Rules, which governs the procedure for
grant of mining lease 'except sand'. Sand settlement, on the
other hand, is specifically governed by Chapter V, namely Rules
29A to 30, which constitutes a distinct and self-contained Code
in relation to the settlement, operation and obligations
pertaining to sand ghats. Once the Rules themselves maintain
this legislative distinction, the respondents could not have
lawfully borrowed Rule 28(1) from a different chapter and
applied it to sand settlees.
14. It is the submission on behalf of the
petitioners that the action of the respondents in forfeiting the
security deposits of the petitioners cannot be justified unless
there exists a clear and specific statutory authority. Further, the
respondents could not have compelled the petitioners to proceed
with the settlement and commence mining operations without
first resolving the foundational issue of actual mineral
availability in the concerned sand ghats. It is the contention of
the petitioners that the actual mineral potential of the respective
sand ghats materially changed after the auction and before the
commencement of operation, and yet the respondents proceeded
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
11/29
as though the originally assumed reserve of sand remained
intact. It is argued that such conduct is arbitrary and reflects
complete non-application of mind and therefore, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
15. It is the categorical submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that no post-monsoonal
replenishment study for the year 2023 was conducted in respect
of the concerned sand ghats, though such study is integral to the
sustainable sand mining practice. The EMGSM, 2020 expressly
recognises replenishment assessment as an essential component
of sustainable sand mining. The purpose of such study is to
ascertain the quantity replenished after monsoon, determine
actual mineable quantity, prevent ecological over-exploitation,
and regulate extraction on a scientific basis. In the absence of
such a study, the respondents could not have lawfully presumed
that the original mineral potential remained unchanged.
16. It is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners that at the time of participating in the auction,
they had inspected the respective sand ghats and had found
sufficient availability of sand, and their bids were made on the
basis of the mineral potential as it then existed and as
represented by the tender and related records. The bid amounts
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
12/29
themselves demonstrate the bona fides of the petitioners.
17. It is submitted that the petitioners acted bona
fide throughout and were never an unwilling or defaulting
bidder. They did not abandon the settlement after being declared
successful, nor did they refuse to proceed at the threshold stage.
On the contrary, both the petitioners deposited the required
security amounts and thereafter complied with the mandatory
procedural requirements and finally obtained environmental
clearance in their favour and thereafter obtained Consent to
Establish and Consent to Operate. Such conduct is wholly
inconsistent with any allegation that the petitioners never
intended to perform their obligations.
18. It has further been submitted that the
petitioners have specifically requested the authority that
environmental clearance be granted only after physical
verification of the sand ghats since the mineral availability had
materially reduced, which clearly shows that the issue of non-
availability of sand in the sand ghats has been raised at the
initial stage. It has further been submitted that though the
petitioner - Bimal Kumar could not furnish separate detailed
replies to each departmental communications during the
relevant period, as he was unwell, such circumstance cannot
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
13/29
defeat the petitioners' substantive case.
19. It is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners that the respondents cannot take shelter of the
tender conditions to validate an action otherwise unsupported by
the governing statutory rules. Even otherwise, the tender clauses
relied upon by the respondents cannot be applied mechanically.
20. It is submitted that Clause 42(xix) of the
N.I.T. cannot preclude objection where the reduction in mineral
potential occurred after the auction and before commencement
of mining due to supervening developments. It is the submission
on behalf of the petitioners that their grievance is not based on
some pre-existing issue that ought to have been discovered
earlier, but on a post-auction change in the physical condition of
the sand ghats. Hence, the petitioners cannot be put to
disadvantage.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
argued that even though the dispute has arisen in the context of
a tender and settlement arrangement, however, the conduct of
the respondent-State remains subject to constitutional standards
of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. The State
cannot claim immunity from judicial review merely because the
relationship has a contractual element. Where the authority acts
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
14/29
under colour of statutory power, invokes an inapplicable rule,
disregards environmental and scientific concerns, ignores bona
fide objections, and imposes penal financial consequences, its
action squarely attracts writ jurisdiction.
22. In support of this proposition, the petitioners
rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India,
reported as (2015) 7 SCC 728, to contend that judicial review
remains available where State action in the contractual field is
arbitrary, unfair, unsupported by law, or violative of public law
obligations.
23. It has further been argued by learned counsel
for the petitioners that a replenishment study conducted in the
year 2022 cannot conclusively determine the actual mineral
availability after subsequent extraction. A full monsoon cycle
and the admitted absence of any updated replenishment study
for the year 2023 also cast doubt on the earlier replenishment
study conducted in the year 2022. It has further been argued that
once the petitioners raised grievance regarding non-availability
of sand, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted a
replenishment study to ascertain the actual availability of sand
and its replenishment rate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
15/29
24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
answering respondents has submitted that these writ petitions
are wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the
impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and
after giving several opportunities to the petitioners to pay the
first installment and when the petitioners failed to pay the same,
the impugned orders forfeiting the earnest money of the
petitioners have been passed.
25. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
answering respondents that the petitioners have consciously
participated in the e-auction process and qualified in the
technical bid and thereafter participated in the auction held on
21.11.2022
, and emerged as the highest bidders. Having
voluntarily participated in the auction with full knowledge of
the terms and conditions, the petitioners cannot now resile from
the obligations flowing from the very tender process.
26. It has further been submitted by learned
counsel for the answering respondents that under the governing
framework, the petitioners were mandatorily required to deposit
the first installment of the settlement amount before issuance of
work order and commencement of mining.
27. Adverting to Clause 19(iii) of the Tender
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
Document, learned counsel for the answering respondents
submits that on perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is clear that
failure to comply with the prescribed formalities and payment
obligations, attracts the forfeiture of security deposit.
28. Learned counsel for the answering
respondents have drawn attention to Clauses- 41 and 42(xxxix)
of the Tender Document to contend that the settlee must adhere
to the Mining Rules, 2019. Further, Rule 29A(5) of the Bihar
Minerals Rules, 2019 clearly provides that if the successful
bidder fails to deposit the required amount and other payable
dues within the prescribed period, as referred to in the
prevailing Government Notification, the security deposit shall
be forfeited and fresh settlement process shall be initiated.
Therefore, the impugned action is not de hors the Rules, but is
traceable to the statutory and policy structure governing sand
settlements.
29. It has further been submitted that in the
Notification dated 10.05.2024 issued by the Department of
Mining & Geology, Government of Bihar, it has been clarified
that the successful bidder must deposit the first installment
within the prescribed period after obtaining CTE/CTO and
execute the agreement, failing which the Letter of Intent is
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
liable to be revoked and the security deposit forfeited.
30. It has further been submitted by learned
counsel for the answering respondents that the inaction on the
part of the petitioners has directly prejudiced the public
exchequer since the settlement period of five years is reckoned
from the date of execution of agreement and the failure on the
part of the petitioners to deposit the first installment and execute
the agreement delayed commencement of the settlement and
caused loss of revenue to the State. The Collectors, therefore,
acted not only within law but also in discharge of their
obligation to protect public revenue and preserve the integrity of
the auction process.
31. Learned counsel for the answering
respondents has rebutted the contention of the petitioners that a
fresh replenishment study was necessary before enforcing the
settlement and has submitted that the District Survey Report
(DSR) had already been duly approved by the competent
authority and the mineable quantity stood reflected therein and
futher the Environmental Clearance was also granted to the
petitioners on that basis. The N.I.T. and the auction process were
founded on this approved DSR. Therefore, according to the
respondents, there was no legal necessity for a separate
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
replenishment study at the stage now suggested by the
petitioners.
32. It has next been submitted by the learned
counsel for the answering respondents that the petitioners
instead of availing the remedy of appeal against the order of the
Collectors, they have directly approached this Court by way of
these writ petitions, which is impermissible and on this ground
also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
33. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
34. The petitioners have emerged as the highest
bidders in the respective auction processes and subsequently,
they have completed the necessary formalities of securing
clearances and approvals from the respondent authorities. In the
interregnum, the petitioners claims that the availability of sand
in their respective sand ghats had reduced significantly
rendering the mining as not feasible. Despite repeated
communications by the respondent authorities, the petitioners
did not deposit the first installment of royalty and as a
consequence thereof, the security deposit of the petitioners were
forfeited and the in-principal work orders were revoked.
35. This Court has noted that the respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
have forfeited the security deposits of the petitioners without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
without issuing a show-cause notice, which clearly violates the
principles of nature justice.
36. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported
as (2025) 7 SCC 545 has emphasized on the imperativeness of
principles of natural justice, particularly, before an
administrative authority acting as a quasi judicial function and
has held as under:-
"43. The opportunity of hearing is considered so
fundamental to any civilised legal system that
the courts have read the principles of natural
justice into an enactment to save it from being
declared unconstitutional on procedural
grounds [Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545] .
44. It has been argued before us that if the failure to
provide hearing does not cause prejudice,
observing the principle of natural justice may
not be necessary. In this context, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan
[S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379]
speaking through Chinappa Reddy, J.
considered such arguments to be "pernicious"
and held that "[t]he non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof
of prejudice independently of proof of denial of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
natural justice is unnecessary". The Supreme
Court, however, has drawn out an exception
where "on the admitted or indisputable facts
only one conclusion is possible, and under the
law only one penalty is permissible, then the
Court may not compel the observance of natural
justice" [Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 51 Comp Cas
210; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2000 SCC (L&S)
965].
45. Professor I.P. Massey [I.P. Massey,
Administrative Law (8th Edn., 2012).] has
commented on this shift as under:
"Before the decision of the highest Court
in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379], the
rule was that the principles of natural
justice shall apply only when an
administrative action has caused some
prejudice to the person, meaning thereby
that he must have suffered some "civil
consequences". Therefore, the person
had to show something extra in order to
prove "prejudice" or civil consequences.
This approach had stultified the growth
of administrative law within an area of
highly practical significance. It is
gratifying that in Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379] , the
Court took a bold step in holding that a
separate showing of prejudice is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
necessary. The non-observance of
natural justice is in itself prejudice
caused. However, merely because facts
are admitted or are undisputable it does
not follow that the principles of natural
justice need not be observed."
46. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC
364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717], the Supreme Court
observed that where an enquiry is not convened
by any statutory provision and the only
obligation of the administrative authority is to
observe the principles of natural justice, the
court/tribunal should make a distinction
between a total violation of the rule of fair
hearing and violation of the facet of that rule. In
other words, a distinction must be made between
"no opportunity" or "no adequate
opportunity". In the case of the former, the
order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and
the authority may be asked to conduct
proceedings afresh according to the rule of fair
hearing. But in the latter case, the effect of
violation of a facet of the rule of fair hearing
has to be examined from the standpoint of
prejudice.
47. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
[Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8
SCC 519 : (2015) 33 GSTR 1], this Court dealt
with the prejudice question as under: (SCC p.
540, para 42)
"42. So far so good. However, an
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
important question posed by Mr Sorabjee
is as to whether it is open to the
authority, which has to take a decision, to
dispense with the requirement of the
principles of natural justice on the
ground that affording such an
opportunity will not make any difference?
To put it otherwise, can the
administrative authority dispense with
the requirement of issuing notice by itself
deciding that no prejudice will be caused
to the person against whom the action is
contemplated? Answer has to be in the
negative. It is not permissible for the
authority to jump over the compliance
of the principles of natural justice on
the ground that even if hearing had
been provided it would have served no
useful purpose. The opportunity of
hearing will serve the purpose or not
has to be considered at a later stage and
such things cannot be presumed by the
authority. This was so held by the
English Court way back in the year 1943
in General Medical Council v. Spackman
[1943 AC 627 (HL)]. This Court also
spoke in the same language in Board of
High School & Intermediate Education,
U.P. v. Chitra Srivastava [Board of High
School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v.
Chitra Srivastava, (1970) 1 SCC 121]
...."
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
48. In a more recent decision in State of U.P. v
Sudhir Kumar Singh [State of U.P. v. Sudhir
Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706] , the position
of law was summarised as under: (SCC pp. 748-
49, para 42)
"42. ...42.1. Natural justice is a flexible
tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach
out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The
breach of the audi alteram partem rule
cannot by itself, without more, lead to the
conclusion that prejudice is thereby
caused.
42.2. Where procedural and/or
substantive provisions of law embody the
principles of natural justice, their
infraction per se does not lead to
invalidity of the orders passed. Here
again, prejudice must be caused to the
litigant, except in the case of a
mandatory provision of law which is
conceived not only in individual interest,
but also in public interest.
42.3. No prejudice is caused to the
person complaining of the breach of
natural justice where such person does
not dispute the case against him or it.
This can happen by reason of estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-
challenge or non-denial or admission of
facts, in cases in which the Court finds
on facts that no real prejudice can
therefore be said to have been caused to
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice.
42.4. In cases where facts can be stated
to be admitted or indisputable, and only
one conclusion is possible, the Court
does not pass futile orders of setting
aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must
be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of
the facts of a case, and not by the
authority who denies natural justice to a
person.
42.5. The "prejudice" exception must be
more than a mere apprehension or even a
reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It
should exist as a matter of fact, or be
based upon a definite inference of
likelihood of prejudice flowing from the
non-observance of natural justice."
37. In an another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur vs. State of
Bihar [(1989) 1 SCC 229] it has been held as under:-
"4. ... But it is an implied principle of the
rule of law that any order having civil
consequence should be passed only after
following the principles of natural
justice. It has to be realised that
blacklisting any person in respect of
business ventures has civil consequence
for the future business of the person
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
concerned in any event. Even if the rules
do not express so, it is an elementary
principle of natural justice that parties
affected by any order should have right
of being heard and making
representations against the order. In that
view of the matter, the last portion of the
order insofar as it directs blacklisting
ofthe appellant in respect of future
contracts, cannot be sustained in law....
..."
38. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has
three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is
required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected
adversely, must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must
apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or
speaking order.
39. Considering the aforesaid decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy
(supra), it is clear that the principles of nature justice must be
adhered to strictly. However, in the present case, the same has
not been adhered to since the security deposits of the petitioners
have been forfeited without having been given an opportunity of
hearing. In my opinion, the petitioners should have been issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
a proper show-cause notice and should have been given an
opportunity of hearing before forfeiture of the security deposit
by the petitioners.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this
Court deems it appropriate that the violation of principle of
natural justice in the present case, warrants remand of the
present matters to the Collectors of Rohtas and Bhojpur districts
respectively for passing a reasoned and speaking order after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in
consonance with the principles of natural justice.
41. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it
is settled that the mining activities cannot be permitted beyond
the annual replenishment rate since that would endanger the
environment and if the geological processes that naturally
replenish the availability of sand cannot match the rate at which
the mining occurs then over the period of time aggressive and
continued mining activity would result in long term
environmental damage. Therefore, sustainable development is
sine qua non to strike a balance between developmental
activities and the conservation of environment.
42. Recently, this Court in the case of Manjeet
Chawla vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2026 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
OnLine Pat 535 has already held that replenishment study is
sine qua non for sand mining projects.
43. The mining over river beds cannot be
permitted contrary to the replenishment rate of sand and that a
replenishment study must be undertaken since it forms the very
basis on which the quantity of permissible mining is determined
and subsequently the environmental clearance is granted. This
Court has noted that under Clause-5 of the Enforcement &
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the need
for replenishment study is paramount in order to nullify the
adverse impact arising due to excessive and aggressive sand
extraction. Thus, the replenishment study is not merely to
ascertain the permissible quantity of sand for extraction but also
is necessary to minimize the adverse impact therefrom and
strike a balance between sand extraction / mining and
preservation of riparian habitat.
44. It is equally settled that the State holds all
natural resources including the minerals as a trustee of the
public and must deal with them in a manner consistent with the
nature of such a trust. What is clearly crystallized, therefore, is
that the annual extractable quantity must be less than the annual
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
replenishment rate in order to align strictly with sustainable
mining practices.
45. For the foregoing reasons, in order to strike a
fair balance and keeping in view the sustainable mining
practice, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of
justice to direct the concerned respondent authorities to conduct
a fresh replenishment study for the Rohtas Sand Ghat No.13 and
Bhojpur Sand Ghat No. 01 by a competent authority / institution
to ascertain the present and true quantity of sand available in the
sand ghats and its replenishment rate, which have been allotted
to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise must be completed
within eight weeks from today. The cost of the aforesaid
replenishment studies shall be borne by the petitioners
themselves.
46. Accordingly, the impugned orders contained
in memo no.758 dated 11.05.2024 passed by the Collector,
Rohtas and memo no.1919 dated 29.04.2024 passed by the
Collector, Bhojpur are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter
is remitted to the Collectors of Bhojpur and Rohtas districts for
passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering
the fresh replenishment study reports, which would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.10740 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
conducted in compliance of the aforesaid directions, for the
respective sand ghats.
47. The writ petitions are allowed to the above
extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 19.01.2026
Uploading Date 16.04.2026
Transmission Date
