According to the original petitioner, when he commenced mining operations, the district administration of Chhatarpur, State of Madhya Pradesh (in short, the State of M.P.) raised an objection to the mining operations conducted by the original petitioner on the ground that 300 meters of the demised mining area fell within the territorial limits of the State of M.P. After disposal of Writ C No.18794 of 2019, a second writ petition i.e., Writ C No.37749 of 2019 was filed by the original petitioner before the High Court, claiming, inter alia, that since the State of U.P. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the order dated July 18, 2019 was passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, a communication dated December 26, 2019 was sent by the District Magistrate, Banda, U.P. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount deposited.”
The High Court then proceeded to notice two letters (i.e., dated December 26, 2019 and March 21, 2020) of the District Magistrate Banda in paragraph 9 of its order, which is extracted below: “9.
Based on that, the High Court briefly recorded its reasons in paragraph 12 and allowed Writ C
No 37749 of 2019 in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated 30.09.2022.
However, the petitioner may have opted for taking lease of a particular plot for carrying out excavation of minor minerals keeping in view the total plot and the availability of minor minerals therein, which may or may not be commercially viable for a part of the area. and its officers (respondents in the writ petition) stating, inter alia, that in the writ petition there was no averment to the effect that possession of the area allotted to the petitioner for carrying out excavation of sand/morum was not handed over to him.
Thus, the total amount deposited by the original petitioner was only Rs.13,17,50,000/- and not Rs.26,65,66,666/- for refund of which, prayer was made in the writ petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, as it is apparent from the face of the record, we accordingly modify the order dated 30.09.2022 to the effect that the opposite party would be at liberty to deduct the amount from the total outstanding amount to the effect (should be read as extent) of total excavated sand/morum of 22,820 cubic meters, as it is alleged the same has been excavated by the petitioner with effect from 15.02.2019 to 26.05.2019 and accordingly, the rest of amount along with requisite interest may be returned.”
13.
On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that the High Court proceeded to decide the matter on an assumption that the State had failed to deliver the possession of the mining area to the original petitioner (the respondent herein). According to the appellants’ counsel, the High Court has failed to address the issues in the correct perspective and thereby erred in law by issuing a direction for refund of the money after deducting the value of the sand/morum already excavated from the mining area. Interestingly, in the writ petition, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure P-9, we could not find any specific statement that the State of U.P. along with Station House Officer, Police Station Bansiya of District Chhatarpur entered 300 meter in the lease area of the petitioner indicating that this area is in M.P. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ-petition it is stated by the original petitioner that there is a boundary dispute between the two States i.e., State of M.P. Interestingly, in the second part of paragraph 11 of the writ-petition, the original petitioner stated: “11.
Further, the High Court failed to address the ground no.8 in the review petition wherein it was stated that in the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 the bidder was advised to inspect and satisfy itself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process. Having found that the High Court has not properly addressed all the issues raised before it, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court by restoring the writ petition to its original number so that it is decided afresh in accordance with law.
We, however, clarify that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of any of the issues that may arise for adjudication by the High Court.
Case Title: STATE OF U.P. Vs. VINAY KUMAR SINGH
Case Number: C.A. No.-005171-005172 / 2023
