IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7055 of 2009 AJAY SINGH s/o Harihar Singh, resident of village- Gijwanhi, P.S.Sasaram (Mufassil),District- Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director, Mines and Geology,Bihar,Patna. 2. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology,Sasaram,Distrit- Rohtas. 3. The Commissioner, Mines and Geology, Bihar,Patna. 4. The District Magistrate,Rohtas at Sasaram. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Singh,Sr.Adv. For the respondents: Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Spl. P.P.Mines. 4 12.11.2009 Petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease. It was advertised for auction for a period of five years. In the auction the petitioner was the highest bidder, who had offered the highest money to the government being Rs. 11,01,00,000/- for a period of five years. The second bidder had bid for Rs. 11 crores and the third highest bidder was only Rs. 5 crores and odd. The conditions were that the total bid consideration would be paid in five equal yearly instalment of 20% and even that 20% is further divided to be paid in three instalments in a year. Apart from this, the petitioner was required to deposit 2% of the bid amount as security. There is no dispute that the petitioner was unable to fulfill his obligation as above because of that lease could not have executed nor he was given possession of the site and the settlement was cancelled. Having failed to pay the amount, Collector, Rohtas, cancelled the settlement. Against that the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna. The Commissioner appreciating that the consequence of re bid would be not very favorable granted various accommodations to the 2 petitioner as noted in his order dated 12.12.2008 passed in Revision Case no. 40/2008 (Annexure 1). He imposed the cost of Rs. one lakh and fixed various time period therein. He also, for the delayed payment, imposed interest at the rate of 24%, as provided under Rule 52(v) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. He fixed 31.12.2008 as the date that all deposit has to be made out. Lease period is to operate from 1st of April, 2008. Petitioner was unable to deposit the full amount as required. He again sought reprieve from the Commissioner, which has now been rejected and he has ordered for re-auction of the entire block. Petitioner has come to this Court and challenged the order of the Commissioner in not extending the time for payment. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that having bid highest, for a high amount initially there were difficulties for the petitioner to abide by the bid but all that has now been cleared. The Commissioner in the interest of revenue should have edconsider extending the same and the petitioner was ready to compensate the State for the delay. Having given a thoughtful consideration one aspect of the matter clearly sticks out for consideration. As apparent from the order of the Commissioner , the second highest bidder totally backed out. The third highest bidder had bid only Rs. 5 crores and odd and thus considering the bid the chances getting lease of high bid again are remote. It would not be in public interest for the State to risk losing such substantial money specially when the petitioner is ready to compensate the State by payment of 3 interest as high as 24%, which is virtually punitive. I, therefore, find that the action of the Commissioner in not extending the period to be arbitrary under the special facts aforesaid. It appears to be that the Commissioner was more concerned about taking unprecedented decision even though in interest of revenue. Be that as it may, I set aside the order of the Commissioner and direct the petitioner , with petitioner’s consent , that first from the money already deposited by him, an amount of Rs. 2 lakh would be appropriated towards cost by the State. 2% security money which comes to about Rs. 22,02,000/- would then be appropriated from the payment already made. In this manner, petitioner would be required to make up this amount first i.e. Rs. 22,02,000/- plus Rs. 2 lakhs totaling to Rs. 24,02,000/- by 21st of November, 2009. It is clarified that he has to pay only the difference i.e. liability as indicated above, as reduced by the amount already deposited by the said date. Then by 31st of December, 2009, petitioner would pay 1/3rd amount of 1st instalment along with delayed payment interest at the rate of 24% deeming payability of the said amount as 1st of August, 2008. It is also clarified that apparently 1st instalment was due to be paid by the end of July, 2008 and as such the delayed interest on the amount that was liable to be paid would be calculated from 1st of August, 2008 upto 31st December, 2009. On these payments being punctually made .State would handover the possession after executing the lease agreement as required by law. 4 Once possession is handed over then the next 1/3rd yearly isntalment would be paid on or before 1st of May, 2010 along with the interest of 20% for delayed payment from the due date, which would be 1st December, 2008 in this case. The last of the 1/3rd of the inst instalment would be paid on or before 1st of September, 2010 would be 1st April. On these instalments being made punctually then the liability to pay subsequent four monthly instalments would be proportionately be paid but would not attract any further interest. Let the petitioner immediately file a copy of this order before the Commissioner, Mines, who would ensure its proper calculation and implementation and direct the Collector, Rohtas accordingly for punctual compliance from both sides. Any failure to comply on part of the petitioner would amount to vacation of this order. The interest paid by the petitioner would be a substantial enhancement of revenue to the State over what petitioner had originally agreed. This order has been passed keeping in view that considering the past trend if re-auction is to be held State would lose substantial amount of revenue, which would not be in public interest. I may further clarify that in case of default by the petitioner, the lease agreement shall be deemed to be cancelled and the amount already deposited would stand forfeited to the State Government with no claim of refund entertainable by the authority. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)