Patna High Court
M/s. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petitions must be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order and appointed sole arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
The petitioners, operators of sand mines, challenged the demand for outstanding installment payments, arguing that the Environment Clearance prohibited mining during the rainy season. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 12036 of 2016, dismissed their intervention applications but directed that the disputes be referred to arbitration, appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as arbitrator and stating that limitation would not apply. Relying on that order, the Patna High Court considered whether the writ petitions could be sent to arbitration despite the absence of an arbitration clause in the original agreements. The Court held that the Supreme Court’s direction was binding and that the High Court could appoint sole arbitrators under Sections 11(8) and 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, three former judges were appointed as arbitrators for the respective petitions, with the seat of arbitration fixed at Patna, and the writ petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the disputes in the writ petitions concerning sand‑mine demand liability are referable to arbitration under the Supreme Court’s order.
- Whether the lack of an arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement precludes arbitration.
- Whether the High Court may appoint arbitrators under Sections 11(8) and 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the limitation period is barred by the Supreme Court’s direction.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(8), 12(1)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Sand mining
- Demand liability
- Environment clearance
- Limitation
- Arbitration clause
- High Court
- Writ petition
- Bihar
- Supreme Court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15660 of 2016
======================================================
M/s. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. S/o Sri Ram Singh resident of Village and
Post- Deenwaladkhani Tehsil-Fatehpur, P.S. No. Fatehpur, District- Sikar
Rajasthan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Mines and
Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Forest and
Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Pat
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Nalanda.
5. The District Mining Officer, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15673 of 2016
======================================================
M/s. Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. S/o Sri Ram Singh resident of Village and
Post- Deenwaladkhani Tehsil- Fatehpur, P.S. No. Fatehpur, District- Sikar
Rajasthan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Mines and
Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forest and
Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Pat
4. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Banka.
5. The Mines Inspector, Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16875 of 2016
======================================================
M/s. Sainik Food Pvt. Ltd. son of Shri Mata Prasad Saxena resident of
Mohalla Gandhi Nagar, Chand Kuan, Konch, District- Jallun Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Mines and
Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forest and
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
2/8
Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Pat
4. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhagalpur.
5. The Mines Development Officer, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15660 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Nandal, SC-3
Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15673 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Md. Ransul Haque, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16875 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-6
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 13-01-2026 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners; learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mining
Department.
2. In these writ petitions, the issue raised is regarding
the demand liability of the petitioners, who are all settlees of
sand mines, to pay the remainder installment for the relevant
period, which is contested in view of the condition imposed in
the Environment Clearance that no river sand mining was
permitted during the rainy season, i.e., the period between July
and September by the Bihar State Level Environment Impact
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
3/8
Assessment Authority.
3. A Similar matter was decided by the Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1942 of 2016,
titled as 'M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors.'. which was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by the State of Bihar in Civil Appeal No(s). 12036 of
2016, titled as ‘State Of Bihar & Ors Vs M/s. Aditya Multicom
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the present petitioners have preferred Intervention
Applications in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 12036 of 2016,
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner-M/s Mahadev
Enclave Pvt. Ltd. who is the petitioner in two of the present writ
petitions i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 15660 of 2016 and C.W.J.C. No.
15673 of 2016, had preferred an intervention application, i.e.,
I.A. No. 02 of 2017 in the Civil Appeal No. 12036 of 2016
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was directed to be
listed along with the aforesaid Civil Appeal No(s). 12036 of
2016. Similarly, the petitioner in C.W.J.C No. 16875 of 2016,
namely, M/s Sainik Food Pvt. Ltd. had also preferred
intervention applications I.A. Nos. 152434 & 152437 of 2021
(Intervention & Direction) in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No(s).
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
4/8
12036 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. The order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 12036 of 2016, reads as
under :-
“The applications for intervention are
dismissed.
The short issue for consideration in the present
appeal is as to whether the Division Bench of the High
Court ought to have passed the impugned order on merits,
in view of the existence of an arbitration clause.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties
submit that this Court can appoint an Arbitrator to go
into the issues both on facts and on law.
Considering the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, we request
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad (Retd),
former Judge of this Court, to act as the learned
Arbitrator.
The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his
own fee.
We make it clear that the question of limitation
shall not arise. We request the learned Arbitrator to
initiate the arbitration proceedings within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Liberty is granted to the intervener(s) to seek
appropriate orders in the pending writ petition(s)
preferred by them, before the High Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside
and the appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
5/8
disposed of.”
6. From the afore-quoted order dated 13.11.2025,
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that liberty
was granted to the intervenors therein i.e., the present writ
petitioners to seek appropriate orders in the pending writ
petitions preferred by them before this Court. Accordingly, the
present petitioners have pressed for appointment of Arbitrator,
in their respective cases, in view of the order dated 13.11.2025
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Present Petitioner Intervention I.A. preferred before
before this Court Application this Court in pursuance
preferred before of the liberty granted by
the Hon’ble the Hon’ble Supreme
Supreme Court in Court vide order dated
Civil Appeal No. 13.11.2025 passed in
12036 of 2016 Civil Appeal No(s).
12036 of 2016
M/s Mahadev
Enclave Pvt. Ltd – I.A. No. 02 of I.A. No. 02 of 2025 in
Petitioner in 2017 C.W.J.C. No. 15660 of
C.W.J.C. No. 15660 2016
of 2016 and 15673
of 2016
M/s Sainik Food I.A. Nos. 152434 I.A. No. 01 of 2025 in
Pvt. Ltd – Petitioner & 152437 of C.W.J.C. No. 16875 of
in C.W.J.C No. 2021 2016
16875 of 2016
7. At this stage it is duly noted that the instant
petitioner-company- M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd in C.W.J.C
No. 15660 of 2016 had preferred an I.A. No. 02 of 2017 in Civil
Appeal No. 12036 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
6/8
which is the very same petitioner company in C.W.J.C No.
15673 of 2016, before this Court. As already noted, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 had directed for
Arbitration in such similar matters.
8. Learned counsel for the State and the Mining
Department have opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has
submitted that since there is no arbitration clause in the
agreement between the parties, this Court should not interfere.
9. The submission of the Mining Department and the
State was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
thereafter the afore-quoted order dated 13.11.2025 was passed in
which liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate
orders in the pending writ petitions preferred by them before
this Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad,
a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was appointed as
Arbitrator by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case.
10. Having considered the submissions of the parties
and considering the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
I am of the view that this matter also requires to be referred for
Arbitration.
11. Accordingly, this Court appoints the following
persons as the learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
7/8
respective disputes between the parties as mentioned hereunder,
subject to the consent of the respective learned Sole Arbitrators
in terms of the provisions under section 11(8) read with section
12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 :-
Writ Petitions Learned Arbitrator
1. C.W.J.C No. 15660 of 2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice
titled as M/s. Mahadev Chakradhari Sharan Singh,
Enclave Pvt. Ltd vs. State of former Chief Justice of the
Bihar & Ors Orissa High Court
2. C.W.J.C No. 15673 of 2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shyam
titled as M/s. Mahadev Kishore Sharma, former Judge,
Enclave Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Patna High Court
Bihar
3. C.W.J.C No. 16875 of 2016, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra
titled as ‘M/s Sainik Food Kumar, former Judge,
Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Bihar Rajasthan High Court.
and Ors.’
12. The learned Arbitrators are given liberty to fix
their own respective fees as per the Schedule-4 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
13. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions
of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the
claim(s), any other preliminary objection, as well as
claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of the parties,
are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrators. It is
however, made clear that, in terms of the afore-quoted order
dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
question of limitation shall not arise.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15660 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
8/8
14. The learned Arbitrators are requested to initiate
the arbitration proceeding within a period of four weeks from
the date of production of a copy of this order.
15. The office is also directed to forward a copy of
this order to the respective learned Arbitrators.
16. The parties are also given liberty to produce this
order before the respective learned Arbitrators.
17. Since the seat of Arbitration in the similar case,
i.e., in the case of M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. is in Patna,
therefore the seat of Arbitration in the present cases shall also be
Patna.
18. Photocopies of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 13.11.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12036 of
2016 and the copy of the I.A. in Civil Appeal No. 12036 of 2016
filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court are taken on record.
19. The present petitions stand disposed of in the
above terms. Pending Interlocutory application(s) also stands
disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U
Checking your session…