IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8767 of 2010 Diwakar Chandra Dubey S/O Late Umesh Chandra Dubey R/O Village Phulwaria, P.O. Baijani, P.S.Jagdishpur, Distt-Bhagalpur Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur 4. The Principal Secretary, Chief Minister's Secretariat Patna 5. The Collector, Banka 6. The Mining Inspector Banka Respondents -------- For the petitioner: Mr Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate Mr Prem Kumar Verma, Advocate For the respondents: Mr V.M.K.Sinha, Advocate --------- 05/ 29.07.2010 This writ petition is being finally heard at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has challenged order dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure 8) passed by the Collector, Banka ( Respondent no.5) imposing ban on lifting of sands from group one sand ghats of Banka district. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said ghats were settled to him for three years 2010-2012 for which Rs 10,10,50,000/- was fixed for first year which is to increase twenty five per cent for each of coming two years and out of such settlement amount Rs 7,09,11,037/- has already been deposited by the petitioner with the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all of a sudden without any notice or information to the petitioner the impugned order was passed imposing ban on the petitioner with respect to lifting of the sand from group one ghats allotted to the - 2 - petitioner, although neither settlement of the petitioner was suspended nor was cancelled in any proceeding nor even any notice with respect thereto was ever served to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and its authorities vehemently contests the claim of the petitioner and submits that there was a great law and order problem as people of the locality objected lifting of the sand from five of the aforesaid ghtats and some of them sat on „Anshan’ also due to which this step was taken in public interest as per clause 10(12) of the said settlement. The said clause provided that settlee was bound to comply the direction of Collector concerning administration for operation of Balu Ghat in public interest. 7. Considering the averments of the parties as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that term „operation of Balu Ghat‟ as used in the aforesaid clause of settlement can not legally include permanent ban or stoppage in lifting sand from all settled Balu ghats. The word operation merely means day to day function in the manner and procedure of lifting of sand from settled Balu ghats. The complete stoppage with immediate effect means suspension or cancellation of settlement which cannot legally be done in this manner without any prior notice to the settlee. There is no provision either in law or in terms of settlement that such order can be passed by the authority concerned completely nullifying the settlement in favour of the petitioner which was made at such high rate about twenty times of the settlement amount of the last year. 8. So far the point of “Public Interest” raised by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the impugned order has been - 3 - passed on 08.05.2010 but the respondents have failed to produce any document to show any such urgency at the time of passing of the impugned order. They have only produced subsequent orders of the authorities dated 03.07.2010 (Annexure R/2), 04.07.2010 (Annexure R/3) and 10.06.2010 which merely reiterate that the impugned order was passed in public interest. The letter sent by District Magistrate to Commissioner dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure R/1) merely shows that the direction of the Government was for taking further action on the basis of a report of the Additional Collector, Banka dated 02.05.2010 (Annexure 1 series). Those reports are also without any proper or reliable materials for taking such serious action affecting the petitioner. 9. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the impugned order passed by the authority was neither due to any public interest nor due to any legal necessity nor even the authority concerned had any jurisdiction to pass such an order without any notice or information to the petitioner. 10. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure 8) passed by the Collector, Banka is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 11. However, this order will not stop the authority concerned in initiating any proceeding for suspension/ cancellation of the licence in accordance with law after due notice to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner will be at liberty to move the authority concerned seeking compensation for the loss accrued to him due to ban of lifting sand from the settled ghats. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)