IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13365 of 2008 WITH CWJC No.13594 of 2008 WITH CWJC No.13595 of 2008 WITH CWJC No.13596 of 2008 Gammon India Limited, Bihar Road Project, NH-2, Near Buddha River, At-Sherghati, District-Gaya through its Project Incharge, Shri Jugal Kishore, S/o-Suraj Bhan Singh. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Assistant Director, Mines & Minderals, Gaya. 4. The District Mines Officer, Gaya. -Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar Adv. Counsel for the State : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Adv. ------------ 03 08.01.2010 At what cross purposes State instrumentalities work is illustrative in these four writ applications. The petitioner is Gammon India Limited one of the premier construction company of the country. State Government decided to give due priority for infrastructural development in the State, which had been lacking. It took special steps to lay out fresh roads of good specifications under the said programme. Advertisements were issued on national basis. Various road construction companies approached. One of the main ingredients for such large scale road development is - 2 - availability of stone chips/stone metals. These are minor minerals regulated by State. The availability of which is essential for the infrastructural development. Normally, quarry leases for this minor mineral was obtained by basically units who would quarry and win the minor mineral and sell it as a trader to any intending user, but as the requirement was enormous and regularity of supply had to be assured, State Government agreed to make available quarries to such construction companies, who were to quarry and win the minor mineral for their captive use in infrastructural development programme of the State Government. It is pursuant to such decisions, petitioner was settled with four Blocks of quarries in the Gaya district by the State Government and four separate lease agreement, which are subject mater of these four writ applications, were executed on 17.10.2002, for a period of 5 years, on basis of terms and conditions, as contained therein, with which we have no dispute. One of the conditions of the lease was that the leases may be renewed for another period of 5 years for which applications had to be made prior to expiry of the leases. As petitioner’s road construction were going on and newer contracts were being given, there being enormous requirement of stone chips, petitioner made due applications for renewal before the expiry of the leases, which was to expire on 16.10.2007. This is not in dispute. - 3 - Petitioner has obtained the complete order sheet in respect of his renewal application under Right to Information Act and has appended the same. First, for one of the Blocks his renewal application was rejected by the Collector, Gaya on 18.12.2007, on the solitary ground that the petitioner had not filed no dues certificate. On the same day, petitioner was granted no dues certificate by the Assistant Director Mines, Gaya, which was immediately filed notwithstanding that the renewal application for other three Blocks was also rejected and the order was communicated on 05.01.2008, merely stating that the rejection order was passed on 18.12.2007 and, as such, petitioner should stop all mining activities on the four Blocks. Petitioner has challenged the rejection of renewal application. Petitioner, as noted above, had obtained copy of the order sheet dealing with his renewal applications. Petitioner submits that the only ground taken for rejection is, petitioner failed to file no dues certificate. Petitioner with reference to the order sheet of his renewal applications submits that it is the Assistant Director Mines, Gaya, who had to grant the no dues certificate, it is the same Assistant Director Mines, Gaya, who processes his file for renewal and it is the same Assistant Director Mines, Gaya, who ultimately grants the no dues certificate, yet the petitioner is being punished by non-renewal. That is per se arbitrary on the face of it. - 4 - Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ applications further points out that the first rejection order passed by the Collector, Gaya is dated 18.12.2007. The order sheet clearly shows that this was specifically in respect of Block-1. The order sheet further clearly shows that in respect of other three Blocks i.e. Blocks- 2,3&4 files were still being processed. The order sheet further shows that while the files were being processed the no dues certificate had been filed and was available on record. It also records that Collector, Gaya has ordered that fresh valuation be made in accordance with rules on increasing the earlier settlement value by 25% for the purpose of renewal. Still for some unexplained reason, suddenly on 05.01.2008 petitioner was communicated that all his renewal applications are rejected on the sole ground of non filing of no dues certificate. Petitioner states, which is not controverted that within the same area renewal applications of several other similarly situated lessees have been granted. State has chosen not to deny the fact. The question thus is, whether the action of the Collector, Gaya in refusing renewal to the petitioner on the sole said ground is sustainable or not. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Mines Department and the State of Bihar submits that the renewal is not a matter of right. It is the discretion of the State to grant renewal or not. Having refused renewal, petitioner - 5 - has no right to seek renewal. In the counter affidavit, for the first time a new ground is taken to justify non-renewal. It is now stated that with effect from 15.04.2008 rules have been amended that is the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules whereby quarry leases for minor minerals are to be settled by open public auction. Renewal was rightly refused and cannot be granted. Having heard the parties at length and with their consent the writ applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. From the facts, as noted above, it would be seen firstly that petitioner as per the terms of lease itself had a right to get renewal. He duly made applications for renewal. From the facts, as stated above, it would also be noted that the petitioner is not a mere trader like other lessees but has been settled the minor leases with the purposes of encouraging implementation of infrastructural growth programme of the State. Leases are for captive consumption and not for trade. The only ground on which the lease is not being renewed is non-furnishing of no dues certificate. It is not in dispute that no dues certificate is to be granted by the Assistant Director Mines, Gaya. It is also not in dispute that Assistant Director Mines, Gaya is the person who processes the file for renewal of minor leases that is apparent from the order sheet as appended. It is the Assistant Director Mines, who points out - 6 - that no dues certificate has not been filed in respect of one Block. The renewal application is rejected by the Collector on 18.12.2007. It is a matter of record and also available from the order sheet that on the same very day the same very Assistant Director Mines, Gaya grants no dues certificate in respect of all the four Blocks to the petitioner, which is immediately filed, which fact is also a matter of record. State has disclosed no reason for not granting no objection certificate earlier. Having noticed in the order sheet that no dues certificate has been filed, yet the renewal applications for the other three Blocks are again rejected, on the ground on no dues certificate not being filed. In my view, these facts do show that the Collector acted in most arbitrary manner along with the authorities of the Mines Department. What else does it shows? There is not a whisper in the order sheet or the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in dues ever and, as such, no dues certificate could not be granted. The authority, who was to grant no dues certificate very well knew the petitioner’s application renewal of lease and the requirement of no dues certificate but still did not grant no dues certificate till the date when Collector, Gaya rejects the renewal application. This Court wonders why? Thus, patently the rejection of petitioner’s renewal application was per se arbitrary and cannot be sustained either - 7 - in fact or in law. There being no other ground for refusing renewal whatever may be said in the counter affidavit in support of non-renewal cannot be taken note of, as it is well settled that where an order is made on grounds disclosed in the order, the validity of the said order has to be tested by the grounds as is disclosed and the order cannot be sustained on grounds in the shape of facts or fresh reasons not mentioned therein. Thus, the action of refusing renewal of lease cannot be sustained in law. While the matter was being argued, learned counsel for the Mines Department pointed out that the land appear to be falling within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad, Gaya and, as such, no objection certificate from the Zila Parishad was necessary. Firstly, this is not a ground for refusing to renew the lease. Secondly, the order sheet would itself show that this was considered by the authorities themselves. The authorities were clear that as the original settlement had been made without no objection certificate from the Zila Parishad, the same cannot be insisted upon at the time of renewal. Further, petitioner has clearly brought out that when the State was auctioning other Blocks and petitioner’s Block in the same area adjacent to petitioner’s Blocks, there was no mentioned that these lands belonged to the Zila Parishad and State was auctioning the same in its own right. Thus, this in my view is a non issue for the present cases. - 8 - Lastly, on behalf of Mines Department, it was submitted that with effect from 15.04.2008, the rules being changed, now such minor minerals settlements are to be made by public auction. If that be so, it is submitted that renewal cannot be granted. Reliance has placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind Stone etc. since reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 711 and in particular paragraphs-12&14 thereof. In my view, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the Apex Court held that the statutory provision, as contained in the rules of that State, did not give any right of renewal to a person. It further held that while the renewal application was pending, the law had changed and, as such, the changed law had to apply. None of those two conditions are applicable here. It is now a settled principle that where a right of renewal is conferred and that to by a specific agreement like in the present case renewal is the rule and rejection is exception. It cannot be said that as the right of renewal does not create an absolute right, renewal can be refused on any ipse dixit ground at the whims and caprice of the State and no one can complain thereof. Even in such matters, State action is governed by Article-14 of the Constitution. It has to be fair, just, proper and non-arbitrary. In the present case, the renewal was refused long before the new rule came into being, as found by this Court. - 9 - It was wrongly and arbitrarily refused. Consequently, the right to get renewal gets crystallized on the day the order refusing to renew was passéd, which was long before the rules was amended. If on the day when orders were passed refusing renewal, renewals have been granted, what would be the effect of the amended rules. The amended rules could not nullify, the grants already made. The amended rules are prospective in operation. Thus, the authorities and much less the State cannot be permitted to say that initially I acted wrongly and I wrongly deprived you of a renewal but now in view of changed rules, I just cannot correct my wrong action and you the citizens must suffer. To my mind, that would be contrary to Article-14 of the Constitution. The petitioner did all that was possible for him to do. It was the Assistant Director Mines, Gaya who delayed in issuing the no dues certificate, which however were issued and filed before last rejection order. Can still it be said that renewal was rightly refused. In my view, no. If that be the answer then the writ applications have to be allowed, as there is no other grounds mentioned in refusing renewal and the Collector, Gaya would be obliged to grant renewal of the leases to the petitioner. Why I mentioned in the opening that different departments are working at cross purposes would be evident from the fact that petitioner had all these minor leases ensuring availability of stone chips has being taking work in - 10 - road infrastructure development in this State and if these leases are denied the very object of infrastructure development would suffer. In view of the aforesaid, the writ applications are allowed. The orders of the Collector, Gaya refusing renewal of minor leases of the petitioner, solely on the ground of no dues certificate not being filed, is set aside. The Collector, Gaya is directed to grant renewal of minor leases in accordance with law within one month from today from the date leases expired. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)