Mahadev Enclave Private Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan) v. The State of Jharkhand and others
Case Details
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
Legal Reasoning
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.)
Decision
ORDER 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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) 7) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. Urgent Certified copies as per Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/MM