Civil Writ Petition No. 18096 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18096 of 2010 Date of Order: 05.10.2010 Sikandar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Gurminder Singh ,Advocate for the petitioner RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for setting aside the notice dated 21.09.2010 and further to direct the respondents not to recover the environmental clearance charges from the petitioner as per notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Government of India. The petitioner is a successful bidder in an auction conducted for extraction of minor minerals. The terms and conditions of the auction, admittedly provide that a successful bidder shall be liable to pay charges incurred by the State in obtaining environmental clearance. The petitioner participated in the auction, without raising any protest with respect to this condition. The petitioner was declared the highest bidder, was awarded the contract and has presumably commenced mining operations. The State has served a demand notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Civil Writ Petition No. 18096 of 2010 -2- Rs.24, 71, 500/-, as environmental clearance charges. The petitioner participated in the auction, cognizant of the condition that requires a contractor to pay proportionate charges, incurred for environmental clearance and is, therefore, estopped from impugning this condition. Reference by counsel for the petitioner to directions issued by a Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.13706 of 2009 (Partap Singh Sandhu v. Union of India) holding that the State of Punjab would be required to obtain environmental clearance would not dilute the petitioner's liability as the obligation to obtain environmental clearance and the right to demand charges for environmental clearance are entirely different matters. The obligation to obtain environmental clearance may rest with the Government but the petitioner's obligation to pay these charges arises from the terms and conditions of the contract awarded to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am prima-facie satisfied that the petitioner cannot, after having participated in the auction and having bagged the contract to extract minor minerals, without protest, turn around and deny his liability. The petitioner may, however, file a representation before the concerned officer setting out his grievance with respect to computation of the amount so demanded. In case, such a representation is filed, it shall be considered and decided within one month. Disposed of accordingly. October 05, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE