Patna High Court
M/s Jai Mata Di EnterprisesversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the respondents violated natural justice by reducing the claim without a hearing and that compensatory interest at 9% per annum is payable on the delayed amounts, allowing the petition and directing the petitioner to seek final settlement with the authority.
Summary
M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises, the petitioner, supplied sand as directed by the Bihar Department of Mines and Geology and incurred freight charges of Rs.97,04,653. The State and its mining corporations paid only 75% of the amount in 2022, citing pending audits, and later reduced the total claim to Rs.64,67,690 without giving the petitioner a hearing. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the remaining 25% and interest at 18% per annum, arguing that the unilateral reduction violated natural justice and constitutional guarantees. The Court held that the respondents erred by not affording a hearing before altering the amount and that interest on delayed payments is compensatory, directing a 9% simple interest rate. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the authority with supporting documents and ordering the respondents to compute and pay the interest within six weeks.
Issues considered
- The respondents may unilaterally reduce the amount payable without affording a hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments despite the absence of a specific contract.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondents to release the balance freight charges.
- Whether the earlier partial payment crystallizes the total claim for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 — s. Rule 43A
Subjects
- natural justice
- interest on delayed payment
- mandamus
- statutory audit
- government contract
- compensatory interest
- procedural fairness
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- Bihar mining regulations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15549 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises Through its sole Proprietor, Shri Gopal Prasad,
Male, aged about 58 years, son of Late Mani Lal, Resident of Hanuman
Complex, Main Road, Nawada, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada, Bihar-
805110.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Mining Corproration Limited, A Government of Bihar
Undertaking, Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan (New Secretariat), Bailey Road,
Patna- 800015 through its General Manager.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
Ms. Aastha Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Deeptak Kumar, AC to GP-4
For the BSMCL : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-04-2026
The writ petitioner, by way of the present petition,
has prayed for the following reliefs:-
a. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents to release the remaining
25% of the freight charges of
Rs.18,51,998/-, along with interest @
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
2/28
18% from the date it became due till the
date of actual payment, in view of the
order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the
Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State
Mining Corporation, by which it was
directed that the petitioner would
presently be paid 75% of the total amount
of freight charges payable to the
petitioner as the audit work has not been
completed:
b. Pass any other order or direction as may
be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts relevant for the present
purpose is that petitioner had participated in auction of sand
ghat in the district of Nawada and the sand ghat was settled in
favour of the petitioner from 01.01.2015 for a period of five
years ending on 31.12.2019. Subsequently, the Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar issued an order dated
08.01.2018 directing all the settlees to arrange transportation of
1,00,000 cubic feet (CFT) of good quality of sand from the sand
ghats to the buffer stock depots of the Bihar State Mining
Corporation Limited in the designated districts. The aforesaid
order dated 08.01.2018 reads as under:-
“fcgkj ljdkj
[kku ,oa HkwrÙo foHkkxA
vkns'kA
vkt fnukad&08-01-2018 dks ckyw ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
3/28
cUnksoLr/kkfj;ksa ds lkFk foe'kksZijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k
fd jkT; ds lHkh Buffer Stock esa ckyw dk O;oLFkk muds
ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA bl lEcU/k esa ftykokj fooj.kh
layXu gS] tgk¡ Buffer Stock gsrq tehu miyC/k gSA
lEcfU/kr cUnksoLr/kkjh ?kkV ls Buffer Stock rd ifjogu
dh O;oLFkk djsaxsA fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa ifjogu dh O;oLFkk
ugha gksus ij [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx esa lwphc) ifjogudrkZ
ds ek/;e ls ;g dk;Z fd;k tk;sxkA rRdky lHkh
cUnksoLr/kkjh ds }kjk lEcfU/kr ftyk ds Buffer Stock esa
100000cft ¼,d yk[k ?ku QhV½ vPNs fdLe dk ckyw
Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsA mudks ;g Hkh /;ku j[kuk gS fd
vU; xzkgdksa dks ckyw miyC/k djus ls igys Buffer Stock
ds fy, ckyw vkiwfrZ djuk vfuok;Z gSA
lacaf/kr ftyk ds Mhiks eSustj ;g lqfuf'pr djsaxs
dh ifjogudrZ~rk }kjk ckyw igq¡pkusa ij mldk çkfIr jlhn
fn;k tk;sxkA bldk iath ds fofgr çi= esa jf{kr djsaxs
rFkk nSfud çfrosnu v|ksgLrk{kjh dks lefiZr djsaxsA
lEiw.kZ O;oLFkk ds vuqikyu ds laca/k esa
v/kksgLrk{kjh ds }kjk vxys vkns'k rd lHkh
cUnkscLr/kkjh ;k muds çfrfuf/k ds lkFk çfrfnu leh{kkRed
cSBd 05-00 cts vijkà esa djsaxsA
gå/
¼vlaxck pqck vkvks½
fo'ks"k lfpo&lg&funs'kdA”
3. Subsequently, the above-quoted order dated
08.01.2018 was amended and a revised list of settlees was
issued vide order dated 10.01.2018 expanding the list of
designated districts wherein at Serial Nos.11 to 16, the petitioner
was also required to supply sand to the buffer stock in the newly
assigned districts.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the
petitioner supplied sand to the buffer stock depots in the
assigned districts in the month of January, February and July of
the year 2018, and in lieu thereof had incurred substantial
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
4/28
financial expenses, which according to the petitioner, was equal
to Rs.97,04,653/-.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had
complied with the orders of the respondent authorities for
transportation of sand for which fright charges were payable by
the Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited but despite the
completion of the work, the legitimate dues of the petitioner
were withheld. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had
made multiple requests and communications, however despite
the repeated reminders, the amount was not released and
therefore the petitioner preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C
No. 10920 of 2021 titled as ‘M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors.’ seeking direction for payment of
outstanding freight charges along with interest at the rate of
18% per annum. The Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 04.01.2022 had disposed of the aforesaid writ with certain
directions.
6. It would be relevant to quote the entire order
dated 04.01.2022 passed in C.W.J.C No. 10920 of 2021 titled as
‘M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.’,
which reads as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
5/28
relief(s):-
“(i) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing
the respondents to pay the freight
charges borne by the petitioner along
with accrued interest @ 18% per annum,
from the date it became due till the date
of actual payment in transporting sand
from the Sand Mines to the depots of the
Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited
for the months of January, February,
2018 & July, 2018 amounting to
Rs.97,04,653/- (Annexure-.2.,page..18 );
ii. To pass such other order(s), direction(s)
as your Lordships may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
After the matter was heard for some time,
learned counsel for the petitioner, under
instructions, states that petitioner shall be
content if a direction is issued to the authority
concerned to consider and decide the
representation which the petitioner shall be
filing within a period of four weeks from today
for redressal of the grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the respondents
states that if such a representation is filed by the
petitioner, the authority concerned shall
consider and dispose it of expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months from
the date of its filing along with a copy of this
order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
6/28
Statement accepted and taken on record.
As such, petition stands disposed of in the
following terms:-
(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority
concerned i.e Respondent No. 3, namely
Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited,
A Government of Bihar Undertaking,
Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan (New
Secretariat), Bailey Road, Patna-800015
through its General Manager within a
period of four weeks from today by filing
a representation for redressal of the
grievance(s);
(b) The said authority shall consider and
dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned
and speaking order preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
its filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while considering such
representation, principles of natural
justice shall be followed and due
opportunity of hearing afforded to the
parties;
(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to take recourse to such
alternative remedies as are otherwise
available in accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when
petitioner takes recourse to such
remedies, as are otherwise available in
law, before the appropriate forum, the
same shall be dealt with, in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
7/28
with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to
approach the appropriate forum, if the
need so arises subsequently on the same
and subsequent cause of action;
(g) We have not expressed any opinion on
merits. All issues are left open;
(h) The proceedings, during the time of
current Pandemic-Covid-19 shall be
conducted through digital mode, unless
the parties otherwise mutually agree to
meet in person i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of” (emphasis supplied).
7. The petitioner, in compliance of the afore-
quoted order dated 04.01.2022, submitted a detailed
representation, enclosing relevant documents, requesting the
respondent authorities to disburse the outstanding amount. The
Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation
Limited, vide order dated 02.08.2022 directed that since the
audit work for the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19 is still
pending, therefore, for the present, 75% of the outstanding
amount would be paid to the petitioner after obtaining necessary
approval from the competent authority.
8. The office order dated 02.08.2022 passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
8/28
the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation
Limited reads as under:-
“dk;kZy; vkns'k
1- esllZ t; ekrk nh baVjçkbtst] guqeku d‚EiysDl] esu jksM]
uoknk&605110 }kjk fcgkj LVsV ekbfuax dkWjiksjs 's ku fyfeVsM ds
fofHkUu cQj LV‚d esa ekg tuojh] Qjojh ,oa tqykbZ 2018 esa
ckyw dk ifjogu fd;k x;k FkkA esllZ t; ekrk nh
baVjçkbtst }kjk fd;s x;s ifjogu ds fo:) ifjogu 'kqYd
dh jkf'k ds Hkqxrku gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa
fjV ;kfpdk CWJC No-10920/2021 nk;j fd;k x;k FkkA
„- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 04-01-2022 dks bl ekeys esa
xq.k&nks"k ij fopkj fd;s fcuk ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fcgkj LVsV
ekbfuax d‚jiksj's ku fyfeVsM ds lacfa /kr çkf/kdkj ds le{k
vH;kosnu lefiZr djus dk funs'Z k fn;k x;k] ftlds vkyksd esa
;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk vH;kosnu lefiZr fd;k x;kA
3- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mä vkns'k ds vkyksd esa çca/k
funs'kd }kjk bl ekeys dh lquokbZ ds fy, eq[; dk;Zikyd
inkf/kdkjh dks çkf/k—r fd;k x;kA bl çdkj bl okn dh
dk;Zokgh çkjaHk dh xbZ gSA
4- vius vH;kosnu esa oknh us dgk gS fd muds }kjk fd;s x;s ckyw
ds ifjogu 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A oknh us fnukad
08-04-2022 dks Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj viuk i{k j[kkA
5- fcgkj LVsV ekbfuax d‚jiksj's ku fyfeVsM dh vksj ls ys[kkiky
}kjk bl ekeys ij viuk i{k j[kk x;k vkSj esllZ t; ekrk
nh baVjçkbtst }kjk fofHkUu cQj LV‚d dsUæksa esa ekg tuojh
Qjojh ,oa tqykbZ 2018 esa ckyw vkiwfrZ ,oa ifjogu 'kqYd dh
jkf'k dh ckr ij lgefr O;ä dh xbZA
6- fuxe ds fofHkUu cQj LV‚d esa oknh }kjk vkiwfrZ ckyw esa ç;qä
okgu dh lwph foHkkxh; PMU }kjk miyC/k djkbZ x;h Fkh]
ftldh tk¡p gsrq fuxe ds i=kad 1114 fnukad 11-04-2022 }kjk
ftyk ifjogu inkf/kdkjh] iVuk ls vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA
ys[kkiky }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k fd [kfut ifjogu esa ç;qä
okguksa dk lR;kiu çfrosnu ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy;] iVuk ds
i=kad 2129 fnukad 20-04-2022 }kjk Q‚eZ 24 esa çkIr gks x;k
gSA
7- ys[kkiky }kjk ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd ftyk ifjogu
dk;kZy; }kjk Q‚eZ&24 esa miyC/k djk, x;s çfrosnu dk
feyku foHkkxh; PMU }kjk la/kkfjr fjdkMZ ls fd;k x;k] tks
lgh ik;k x;kA
8- ys[kkiky }kjk fcgkj LVsV ekbfuax d‚jiksj's ku fyfeVsM ds foÙkh;
o"kZ 2017&18 ,oa 2018&19 dk lkafof/kd vad{s k.k dk;Z lEiUu
ugha gksus ds rF; ds vkyksd esa oknh dks dqy Hkqxrs; jkf'k dk
rRdky 75 çfr'kr jkf'k Hkqxrku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k]
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
9/28
tks mfpr çrhr gksrk gSA
9- vr% oknh ds vH;kosnu ds vk/kkj ij dqy Hkqxrs; jkf'k dk 75
çfr'kr jkf'k ds Hkqxrku ij l{ke çkf/kdkj dh Loh—fr çkIr
dj yh tk;A mijksä ds vuqlkj ;g vH;kosnu fu"ikfnr fd;k
tkrk gSA
gå/-
xksiky eh.kk
eq[; dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh
fcgkj LVsV ekbfuax d‚jiksj's ku fyå”
9. Accordingly, the General Manager, Bihar
State Mining Corporation Limited, vide his letter dated
02.09.2022 sanctioned a payment of Rs.55,55,992/- being 75%
of the payable amount, and after deducting an amount of Rs.
1,65,998/- towards GST, a sum of Rs. 53,90,004/- was disbursed
in favour of the petitioner.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that even after lapse of more than three years from the
date of disbursement of the earlier part payment of 75% of the
admitted dues, the remaining 25% amount due and payable to
the petitioner has not been released, for which the petitioner had
filed representations dated 16.05.2024 and 02.07.2024 before
the Competent Authority, yet no meaningful action has been
taken by the respondent authorities.
11. It is the next submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the
present writ petition, the respondent authorities, acting in haste,
issued order dated 10.11.2025 whereby the total due and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
10/28
payable amount was arbitrarily reduced to Rs. 64,67,690/- and
the balance amount of Rs. 9,11,698/- was disbursed in favour of
the petitioner. It is emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that once the amount stood admitted and
partially acted upon by the respondent authorities, it was not
open for the respondents to unilaterally change and effect a
downward revision. The act of re-opening the calculation to
diminish the crystallized claim of the petitioner by the
respondents is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is violative
of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
12. It is submitted that even otherwise, the
payment of Rs. 55,55,992/- after lapse of four years and
Rs.9,11,698/- after lapse of seven years of it becoming due and
payable, the respondents have failed to make any payment
towards interest on delayed payments. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner points to the fact that the respondent
department itself charges interest at the rate of 24% per annum
on delayed payments of due installments under Rule 43A of the
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Rule 29B(4)
of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention and Illegal
Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 from the lessee
holders. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
11/28
placed reliance on Rajnish Sharma vs. M/s Business Park
Town Planners Ltd. reported as neutral citation 2025 INSC
1149 (Civil Appeal No. 3988 of 2023), to contend that delay in
payments which is attributable to the arbitrary conduct and
shifting stands or unjustified withholding of money by the State,
entitles the aggrieved party to interest which meaningfully
compensates the prejudice suffered.
13. It is further argued by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the award of interest on delayed
payment would not be penal, but rather compensatory in nature
since the respondents have deliberately delayed the payments
which were due and payable to the petitioner.
14. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that once the amount stood admitted
and partially acted upon by disbursing 75% of the amount in
favour of the petitioner, the respondents were under a legal
obligation to release the balance amount expeditiously. The
prolonged withholding of the amount due and payable to the
petitioner from the year 2018 itself and the arbitrary and
unilateral reduction of the admitted amount is merely selective
denial on the part of the respondents and therefore, the
petitioner deserves the payment of original admitted amount and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
12/28
the interest on the delayed payments.
15. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
answering respondent nos. 4 and 5.
16. The learned Counsel for the answering
respondent nos.4 and 5 has submitted that pursuant to the orders
of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition
preferred by the petitioner, a representation was filed by the
petitioner before the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State
Mining Corporation Limited, who, after examining the claim of
the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by a
Committee constituted by the Managing Director under the
Chairmanship of the General Manager and others had
categorically found vide office order contained in memo no. 668
dated 10.11.2025, that as per the audited books of account, the
total amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.64,67,690/-, out of
which Rs. 55,55,992/- has already been paid to the petitioner in
view of the letter No.1874 dated 02.09.2022 and as such, the
remaining amount of Rs. 9,11,698/- was sanctioned for payment
and after deducting TDS and GST on TDS an amount of Rs.
8,84,347/- has already been paid to the petitioner in his bank
account through RTGS on 11.11.2025.
17. It is the submission of the answering
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
13/28
respondent nos. 4 and 5 that since the amount already stands
paid to the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner has been
adequately redressed and therefore nothing survives in the
present petition.
18. So far as the claim of the petitioner with
respect to the freight charges amounting to Rs.97,04,653/- is
concerned, it has been categorically submitted by the learned
counsel for the answering respondent nos. 4 and 5, that a duly
constituted Committee under the Chairmanship of General
Manager has examined the issue in detail and thereafter
submitted a report, wherefrom it is evident that as per audited
books of account, total amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.
64,67,690/- out of which Rs. 55,55,992/- has already been paid
to the petitioner and the remaining due and payable amount of
Rs.9,11,698/- has subsequently been sanctioned, once the audit
process was completed.
19. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for
the answering respondent nos. 4 and 5 that since the statutory
audit for the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19 was pending
and there was no Chartered Accountant appointed in the Bihar
State Mining Corporation Limited, therefore the total payable
amount was not verified earlier. Subsequently, the Committee
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
14/28
found that as per audited books of account, the total amount
payable to the petitioner is Rs.64,67,690/-.
20. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioner, it is submitted that once the respondent - BSMCL
had itself admitted in September, 2022 that an amount of Rs.
55,55,992/- is the 75% of the total due and payable amount,
therefore, the total payment amount stood at Rs. 97,04,653/- and
now the respondents cannot turn around and assert that the
petitioner is entitled to only Rs. 64,67,690/-. Having themselves
acknowledged and acted upon the admitted liability by releasing
75% of the amount, the respondents can not be permitted to
approbate and reprobate.
21. It has also been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the office order dated 10.11.2025 enclosed with
the counter affidavit has been issued subsequent to the filing of
and during the pendency of the present writ petition and the
same can not be used to defeat or dilute the rights of the
petitioner which had already been crystallized in favour of the
petitioner much prior to the filing of the present writ petition on
account of the fact that the respondents had themselves acted on
the admitted amount and released 75% of the total due and
payable amount. It has further been stated that the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
15/28
Office Order dated 10.11.2025 has been issued behind the back
of the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing
and is, therefore, in clear violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Consideration
22. I have heard and considered the submissions
of the parties and perused the materials available on record.
23. The petitioner acting under the express
direction of the respondents to supply 1,00,000 cubic feet (CFT)
of good quality of sand from the sand ghats to the buffer stock
depots of the Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited in the
months of January, February and July of 2018 and, in doing so,
incurred financial expenses (freight charges) which were to be
paid to the petitioner. However, despite the claim of the
petitioner, the respondents sat over the payments initially for
four years and upon directions being issued by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2022, the
respondents disbursed an amount of Rs.55,55,992/-, which was
styled as 75% of the total amount due and payable to the
petitioner.
24. From a perusal of the office order dated
02.08.2022, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
16/28
Mining Corporation Limited, it is clear that since the internal
audit was not carried out for the financial years 2017-18 and
2018-19, therefore, as an interim measure the 75% of the
claimed amount recommended by the accountant, was released
in favour of the petitioner. It may be gainful to reproduce
paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the aforesaid office order dated
02.08.2022, which reads as under:-
“8- ys[kkiky }kjk fcgkj LVsV ekbfuax d‚jiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
ds foÙkh; o"kZ 2017&18 ,oa 2018&19 dk lkafof/kd
vads{k.k dk;Z lEiUu ugha gksus ds rF; ds vkyksd esa
oknh dks dqy Hkqxrs; jkf'k dk rRdky 75 çfr'kr jkf'k
Hkqxrku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k] tks mfpr çrhr
gksrk gSA
9- vr% oknh ds vH;kosnu ds vk/kkj ij dqy Hkqxrs; jkf'k
dk 75 çfr'kr jkf'k ds Hkqxrku ij l{ke çkf/kdkj dh
Loh—fr çkIr dj yh tk;A mijksä ds vuqlkj ;g
vH;kosnu fu"ikfnr fd;k tkrk gSA”
25. From the perusal of the records, it appears
that during the pendency of the instant writ petition the
Managing Director, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited
constituted a Committee to examine the claim of the petitioner
and the aforesaid Committee submitted its report on 07.11.2025,
wherein certain errors were detected which have been
reproduced in the office order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the
Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation
Limited.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
17/28
26. It is not in dispute that for the financial year,
2017-18 and 2018-19, the statutory audit was not completed at
the time when the initial part payment of 75% of the payable
amount was made in favour of the petitioner and that there was
no Chartered Accountant appointed at the relevant point in time.
It is, therefore, clear that the amount disbursed was purely
provisional and interim in nature and was subject to finalization
after a proper statutory audit. The fact that the respondents have
made a part payment of 75% equal to Rs.55,55,992/- and
therefore, ipso facto the total amount due and payable to the
petitioner stood crystalized as Rs.97,04,653/- is not appealing to
this Court in view of the fact that the earlier office order dated
02.08.2022 itself notes that the payment of 75% was made in
the backdrop of the pending statutory audit and further the later
office order dated 10.11.2025 records certain discrepancies in
the total amount as also reported by the Committee constituted
by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Mining
Corporation.
27. From the perusal of the records, it is clear
that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the
respondents disbursed the pending amount in favour of the
petitioner, however, before diminishing the total due and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
18/28
payable amount, the respondents failed to issue any show cause
notice to the petitioner or afford an opportunity of hearing to
explain the discrepancies as noted by the Committee.
28. It is natural, that the final amount before a
statutory audit could not have yielded a crystalized and settled
claim in favour of the petitioner. However, before arriving at a
final amount due and payable to the petitioner, more particularly
in view of the discrepancies noted by the Committee, the
respondents ought to have issued a show cause notice or
afforded the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of hearing
to explain those discrepancies and thereafter, a final speaking
order ought to have been passed. This Court has noted that the
earlier the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
04.01.2022 also directed that while considering the
representation preferred by the petitioner principles of natural
justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing shall be
afforded to the petitioner.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as (2025)
7 SCC 545 has emphasized on the imperativeness of principles of
natural justice, particularly, before an administrative authority
acting as a quasi judicial function and has held as under:-
“43. The opportunity of hearing is considered so
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
19/28
fundamental to any civilised legal system that
the courts have read the principles of natural
justice into an enactment to save it from being
declared unconstitutional on procedural
grounds [Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545] .
44. It has been argued before us that if the failure to
provide hearing does not cause prejudice,
observing the principle of natural justice may
not be necessary. In this context, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan
[S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379]
speaking through Chinappa Reddy, J.
considered such arguments to be “pernicious”
and held that “[t]he non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof
of prejudice independently of proof of denial of
natural justice is unnecessary”. The Supreme
Court, however, has drawn out an exception
where “on the admitted or indisputable facts
only one conclusion is possible, and under the
law only one penalty is permissible, then the
Court may not compel the observance of natural
justice” [Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 51 Comp Cas
210; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2000 SCC (L&S)
965].
45. Professor I.P. Massey [I.P. Massey,
Administrative Law (8th Edn., 2012).] has
commented on this shift as under:
“Before the decision of the highest Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
20/28
in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379], the
rule was that the principles of natural
justice shall apply only when an
administrative action has caused some
prejudice to the person, meaning thereby
that he must have suffered some “civil
consequences”. Therefore, the person
had to show something extra in order to
prove “prejudice” or civil consequences.
This approach had stultified the growth
of administrative law within an area of
highly practical significance. It is
gratifying that in Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379] , the
Court took a bold step in holding that a
separate showing of prejudice is not
necessary. The non-observance of
natural justice is in itself prejudice
caused. However, merely because facts
are admitted or are undisputable it does
not follow that the principles of natural
justice need not be observed.”
46. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC
364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717], the Supreme Court
observed that where an enquiry is not convened
by any statutory provision and the only
obligation of the administrative authority is to
observe the principles of natural justice, the
court/tribunal should make a distinction
between a total violation of the rule of fair
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
21/28
hearing and violation of the facet of that rule. In
other words, a distinction must be made between
“no opportunity” or “no adequate
opportunity”. In the case of the former, the
order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and
the authority may be asked to conduct
proceedings afresh according to the rule of fair
hearing. But in the latter case, the effect of
violation of a facet of the rule of fair hearing
has to be examined from the standpoint of
prejudice.
47. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
[Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8
SCC 519 : (2015) 33 GSTR 1], this Court dealt
with the prejudice question as under: (SCC p.
540, para 42)
“42. So far so good. However, an
important question posed by Mr Sorabjee
is as to whether it is open to the
authority, which has to take a decision, to
dispense with the requirement of the
principles of natural justice on the
ground that affording such an
opportunity will not make any difference?
To put it otherwise, can the
administrative authority dispense with
the requirement of issuing notice by itself
deciding that no prejudice will be caused
to the person against whom the action is
contemplated? Answer has to be in the
negative. It is not permissible for the
authority to jump over the compliance
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
22/28
of the principles of natural justice on
the ground that even if hearing had
been provided it would have served no
useful purpose. The opportunity of
hearing will serve the purpose or not
has to be considered at a later stage and
such things cannot be presumed by the
authority. This was so held by the
English Court way back in the year 1943
in General Medical Council v. Spackman
[1943 AC 627 (HL)]. This Court also
spoke in the same language in Board of
High School & Intermediate Education,
U.P. v. Chitra Srivastava [Board of High
School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v.
Chitra Srivastava, (1970) 1 SCC 121]
….”
48. In a more recent decision in State of U.P. v
Sudhir Kumar Singh [State of U.P. v. Sudhir
Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706] , the position
of law was summarised as under: (SCC pp. 748-
49, para 42)
“42. …42.1. Natural justice is a flexible
tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach
out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The
breach of the audi alteram partem rule
cannot by itself, without more, lead to the
conclusion that prejudice is thereby
caused.
42.2. Where procedural and/or
substantive provisions of law embody the
principles of natural justice, their
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
23/28
infraction per se does not lead to
invalidity of the orders passed. Here
again, prejudice must be caused to the
litigant, except in the case of a
mandatory provision of law which is
conceived not only in individual interest,
but also in public interest.
42.3. No prejudice is caused to the
person complaining of the breach of
natural justice where such person does
not dispute the case against him or it.
This can happen by reason of estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-
challenge or non-denial or admission of
facts, in cases in which the Court finds
on facts that no real prejudice can
therefore be said to have been caused to
the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice.
42.4. In cases where facts can be stated
to be admitted or indisputable, and only
one conclusion is possible, the Court
does not pass futile orders of setting
aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must
be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of
the facts of a case, and not by the
authority who denies natural justice to a
person.
42.5. The “prejudice” exception must be
more than a mere apprehension or even a
reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
24/28
should exist as a matter of fact, or be
based upon a definite inference of
likelihood of prejudice flowing from the
non-observance of natural justice.”
30. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three
basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is
required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected
adversely, must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must
apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or
speaking order.
31. In the present case, it appears that the
respondents before finalizing the amount, due and payable to the
petitioner, after noticing discrepancies as recorded in the office
order dated 10.11.2025 did not afford any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, which is in clear contravention of the
principles of natural justice and the express direction of the
Division Bench vide order dated 04.01.2022. Thereafter, the
respondents, unilaterally diminished by a downward revision of
the final amount due and payable to the petitioner, which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
32. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
25/28
grant liberty to the petitioner, to approach the respondent
authorities, with relevant supporting documents to establish its
claim of the amount due and pending, to finally settle the
amount due and payable to it.
33. Now, coming to the second issue of the
interest on delayed payment, it is clear that the first part
payment of Rs.55,55,992/- was made after lapse of about four
years and the second payment of Rs.9,11,698/- after a lapse of
about seven years.
34. Merely because the principal amount stood
paid, assuming the present amount to be the final due and
payable amount, the question of interest does not ipso facto
vanish more so, when there has been a considerable delay in
making these payments. In the case of Umesh Singh Yadav vs.
State of Bihar C.W.J.C No. 13717 of 2021, the Division Bench
of this Court while considering the refund of security deposits
for the sand ghat settlements made in the year 2019, had
allowed the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate
authority for award of interest. A Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Block Chain Warehousing and Jute Pvt. Limited vs.
State of Bihar C.W.J.C No. 1249 of 2024, had also permitted
the petitioner therein to approach the respondent authorities on
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
26/28
the question of interest after the payment/refund of security
amount.
35. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in M/s
Asha Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Bihar C.W.J.C No.
18194 of 2022, while considering the non-payment of monies to
a contractor despite timely finishing the work had directed for
payment of compensatory interest on delayed payments.
36. It is settled law that the underlying principle
guiding award of interest is that interest payment is essentially
compensatory in nature.
37. It is quite clear that the respondents had
availed the services of the petitioner for transportation of the
sand to its buffer stock depots and thereafter sat over the
payments for four years to make the first part payment and
thereafter for seven years for the second limb of the payment.
The actions of the respondents to withhold the payment for
such duration of time would clearly amount to unjust windfall.
The fact that the statutory audit was not conducted for the
relevant financial years may mean that the final amount due and
payable was yet to be determined/finalized, yet the deprivation
suffered by the petitioner on account of the delayed payments
for unreasonably long duration, ought to be corrected and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
27/28
compensated suitably. It is true that for the assigned work of
transportation of sand, there was no specific contract which
could contemplate therein the eventuality of delayed payments
and the interest accrued thereupon, however the non-existence
of such an agreement could not disentitle the petitioner from
compensatory interest on delayed payments. Further from the
perusal of the records, it is also evident that there was no
statutory bar or contractual proscription on interest on delayed
payment.
38. Therefore, in absence of any statutory bar or
contractual proscription operating against interest on delayed
payments, and considering the unreasonably long delay in
making payment to the petitioner in the present case, this Court
deems it appropriate to award a compensatory interest of 9% per
annum from the date of accrual of the payment till the time they
were made.
39. In view of the foregoing discussions, the
following directions are being passed:-
i. The petitioner is given liberty to approach
the respondent Chief Executive Officer,
Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited with
all relevant supporting documents, if so
Patna High Court CWJC No.15549 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
28/28
advised, to claim the excess amount, still due
and pending. The respondent authorities shall
comprehensively consider the representation
of the petitioner and after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing, shall pass
a reasoned and speaking order within 6
weeks.
ii. The respondents are directed to calculate the
interest on the delayed payments from the
date of its accrual to the date of its actual
payment at the rate of 9% (simple interest)
per annum and thereafter disburse the same
within 6 weeks from today.
40. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 13.01.2026
Uploading Date 16.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.