High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "1 Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents especially respondent no. 3 and 4 to forthwith refund Rs. 2.15.000/- to the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit within a period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The contention on behalf of petitioner is that in May, 2014, the respondent No. 2 had seized 200 cubic meters of sand, found to be illegally excavated and stored/dumped in the premises of co- operative society situated in Village-Nahari, Tehsil-Naraini, District-Banda.

4. A public notice was issued in June, 2014 for auction of the seized sand. Pursuant to which, the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and offered the highest bid of Rs. 2,15,000/- for the seized 200 cubic meters of sand after depositing an earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- on 02.07.2014.

5. The offer of the petitioner was accepted on 04.07.2014 and a notice was issued by SDM on 11.07.2014 directing the petitioner to deposit the balance bid amount at the earliest.

6. The petitioner states that he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- by means of a challan dated 18.12.2014.

7. It is stated that the respondents did not issue the Transportation Form for lifting the sand nor issued any letter in this regard. Taking advantage of the circumstances, unknown persons started stealing the sand, which was purchased by the petitioner and in that regard, an application dated 13.03.2015 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

8. Another application was moved on 18.06.2015 to the same effect. Thereafter, on 04.08.2015, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the In-charge Officer (Mines)/ADM Banda for issuing Ravanna (Transportation Form) for lifting the sand.

9. It is stated that none of the requests of the petitioner were considered and therefore, he was compelled to move an application on 16.10.2015 for refund of the entire amount deposited by him, pursuant to the auction held along with compounded interest. It is stated that respondents have not refunded the amount.

10. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 19.01.2015, which was sworn by District Mines Officer, Banda. It was stated that after seizure of the illegally stored sand, the same was handed over to one Sri Ram Kishore, R/o Village Nahri but the petitioner had stated that after seizure, the answering respondents handed over the sand in the supurdagi of Sri Munnu Tiwari. It is indicated in the paragraph 7 that, after acceptance of the bid on 04.07.2014, the auctioned sand was handed over to the petitioner and it was the duty of the petitioner to take care of the stored sand. It is stated that petitioner deposited the total amount in the month of December, 2014 and subsequently, he submitted an application for return of the money, which cannot be given to him.

11. A rejoinder-affidavit was filed alleging collusion of the respondents with the persons who had stolen the sand, and not supplying the petitioner with the requisite transportation form.

12. When the matter was listed before the Court on 31.08.2021, after noticing the facts of the case, the Court observed that the petitioner ought to have been informed of any legal formalities, if so provided, to enable him to lift the sand and the State respondents cannot be permitted to go scot free after having realized the entire auction amount. The case was adjourned directing the third respondent, District Magistrate, to file a personal affidavit on the aspects on the order referred and to come up with a clear stand as to whether he was ready to refund the amount along with interest to the petitioner or not.

13. On 09.09.2021, a personal affidavit of the District Magistrate was filed in Court. Along with this personal affidavit, it was stated that after the auction, the entire amount of sand was required to be lifted within a period of one month, by the petitioner in view of the terms of the advertisement dated 23.06.2014, after depositing the entire amount in advance in lump-sum.

14. It is stated that after agreeing with the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings. It is stated that the balance amount was deposited only after 05 months. It is further stated that the advertisement was for auction of sand that was situated at several other places in which all other five successful bidders had applied for issuance of Form C after depositing the requisite amount as per the rule 4 of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 and lifted the mineral. The petitioner never applied for the issuance of Form C.

15. It is stated that the petitioner is not new to the mining business and it cannot be said that he was not aware of the Rules, 2002. The petitioner had obtained licence of storage of sand/morang for a period from 09.04.2018 to 08.04.2021 at Village - Badausa, Tehsil- Atarra, District-Banda in which the petitioner was found indulging in illegal mining/transportation of mining. Therefore, the licence was cancelled on 16.08.2018.

16. The contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that even after the acceptance of the auction to the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner was not depositing the balance amount of the auction promptly in terms of the notice dated 11.07.2014, but deposited the same after a period of five months i.e., on 10.12.2014 and even thereafter, not complying with the tender notice itself, by not lifting the sand within a period of one month thereafter. It is stated that these are deliberate lapses on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that under the circumstances, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner.

17. Having perused the record including the advertisement that is filed along with the affidavit of the District Magistrate, the submissions made on behalf of the State respondents appear to be correct.

18. We find that the amount due, after the successful bid amount made by the petitioner was deposited on 10.12.2014 as per the challan enclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition itself. The advertisement dated 23.06.2014 itself mandates lifting of sand within a period of one month after deposit of the entire auction amount and the petitioner failed to do so. It has been stated by the District Magistrate in his personal affidavit that all the other five bidders, who had successfully participated in the auction for sand, placed at several other places, had lifted the sand after due deposit of entire amount.

19. It is further, stated in the affidavit of the District Magistrate that the petitioner is not new to the mining business and he was also involved in illegal mining and transportation of mining because of which the licence of storage, previously granted, was cancelled on 06.08.2018.

20. No reply of the personal affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

21. Under the circumstances, the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate is un-controverted.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, no indulgence is called in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Aditya Tripathi ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "1 Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents especially respondent no. 3 and 4 to forthwith refund Rs. 2.15.000/- to the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit within a period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The contention on behalf of petitioner is that in May, 2014, the respondent No. 2 had seized 200 cubic meters of sand, found to be illegally excavated and stored/dumped in the premises of co- operative society situated in Village-Nahari, Tehsil-Naraini, District-Banda.

4. A public notice was issued in June, 2014 for auction of the seized sand. Pursuant to which, the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and offered the highest bid of Rs. 2,15,000/- for the seized 200 cubic meters of sand after depositing an earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- on 02.07.2014.

5. The offer of the petitioner was accepted on 04.07.2014 and a notice was issued by SDM on 11.07.2014 directing the petitioner to deposit the balance bid amount at the earliest.

6. The petitioner states that he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- by means of a challan dated 18.12.2014.

7. It is stated that the respondents did not issue the Transportation Form for lifting the sand nor issued any letter in this regard. Taking advantage of the circumstances, unknown persons started stealing the sand, which was purchased by the petitioner and in that regard, an application dated 13.03.2015 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

8. Another application was moved on 18.06.2015 to the same effect. Thereafter, on 04.08.2015, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the In-charge Officer (Mines)/ADM Banda for issuing Ravanna (Transportation Form) for lifting the sand.

9. It is stated that none of the requests of the petitioner were considered and therefore, he was compelled to move an application on 16.10.2015 for refund of the entire amount deposited by him, pursuant to the auction held along with compounded interest. It is stated that respondents have not refunded the amount.

10. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 19.01.2015, which was sworn by District Mines Officer, Banda. It was stated that after seizure of the illegally stored sand, the same was handed over to one Sri Ram Kishore, R/o Village Nahri but the petitioner had stated that after seizure, the answering respondents handed over the sand in the supurdagi of Sri Munnu Tiwari. It is indicated in the paragraph 7 that, after acceptance of the bid on 04.07.2014, the auctioned sand was handed over to the petitioner and it was the duty of the petitioner to take care of the stored sand. It is stated that petitioner deposited the total amount in the month of December, 2014 and subsequently, he submitted an application for return of the money, which cannot be given to him.

11. A rejoinder-affidavit was filed alleging collusion of the respondents with the persons who had stolen the sand, and not supplying the petitioner with the requisite transportation form.

12. When the matter was listed before the Court on 31.08.2021, after noticing the facts of the case, the Court observed that the petitioner ought to have been informed of any legal formalities, if so provided, to enable him to lift the sand and the State respondents cannot be permitted to go scot free after having realized the entire auction amount. The case was adjourned directing the third respondent, District Magistrate, to file a personal affidavit on the aspects on the order referred and to come up with a clear stand as to whether he was ready to refund the amount along with interest to the petitioner or not.

13. On 09.09.2021, a personal affidavit of the District Magistrate was filed in Court. Along with this personal affidavit, it was stated that after the auction, the entire amount of sand was required to be lifted within a period of one month, by the petitioner in view of the terms of the advertisement dated 23.06.2014, after depositing the entire amount in advance in lump-sum.

14. It is stated that after agreeing with the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings. It is stated that the balance amount was deposited only after 05 months. It is further stated that the advertisement was for auction of sand that was situated at several other places in which all other five successful bidders had applied for issuance of Form C after depositing the requisite amount as per the rule 4 of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 and lifted the mineral. The petitioner never applied for the issuance of Form C.

15. It is stated that the petitioner is not new to the mining business and it cannot be said that he was not aware of the Rules, 2002. The petitioner had obtained licence of storage of sand/morang for a period from 09.04.2018 to 08.04.2021 at Village - Badausa, Tehsil- Atarra, District-Banda in which the petitioner was found indulging in illegal mining/transportation of mining. Therefore, the licence was cancelled on 16.08.2018.

16. The contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that even after the acceptance of the auction to the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner was not depositing the balance amount of the auction promptly in terms of the notice dated 11.07.2014, but deposited the same after a period of five months i.e., on 10.12.2014 and even thereafter, not complying with the tender notice itself, by not lifting the sand within a period of one month thereafter. It is stated that these are deliberate lapses on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that under the circumstances, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner.

17. Having perused the record including the advertisement that is filed along with the affidavit of the District Magistrate, the submissions made on behalf of the State respondents appear to be correct.

18. We find that the amount due, after the successful bid amount made by the petitioner was deposited on 10.12.2014 as per the challan enclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition itself. The advertisement dated 23.06.2014 itself mandates lifting of sand within a period of one month after deposit of the entire auction amount and the petitioner failed to do so. It has been stated by the District Magistrate in his personal affidavit that all the other five bidders, who had successfully participated in the auction for sand, placed at several other places, had lifted the sand after due deposit of entire amount.

19. It is further, stated in the affidavit of the District Magistrate that the petitioner is not new to the mining business and he was also involved in illegal mining and transportation of mining because of which the licence of storage, previously granted, was cancelled on 06.08.2018.

20. No reply of the personal affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

21. Under the circumstances, the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate is un-controverted.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, no indulgence is called in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Aditya Tripathi ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad