Patna High Court
Lalan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that forfeiture of security deposits on surrender of sand‑ghat settlements is unlawful because it is not authorized by the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 and must be governed by Rule‑50, rendering the State's rejection and forfeiture void.
Summary
The petitioners, who were successful bidders for sand‑ghat concessions in Bihar, complied with auction, environmental clearances and executed mining lease deeds, but later surrendered their settlements and sought refund of the earnest‑money/security deposits that the State authorities had forfeited. The State, relying on clauses in the tender documents, the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, 2019 and Clause‑10 of the lease deed, rejected the surrenders and retained the deposits. The Court examined the statutory framework, particularly Rule‑50 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, and held that no provision in the Rules authorises forfeiture on surrender; statutory rules prevail over contractual terms and executive instructions. Consequently, the forfeiture was declared illegal, the surrender applications must be decided under Rule‑50, and the deposits ordered to be refunded after lawful deductions. The Court also permitted the petitioner Awanish Construction to seek proportional royalty relief for a 70‑day mining stoppage.
Issues considered
- The legality of rejecting settlement surrender and forfeiting security deposits despite Rule‑50 of the 2019 Rules
- Whether contractual clauses (Clause‑10 of the lease deed, tender clauses) can override statutory provisions
- Whether executive instructions or policy decisions can supersede the 2019 Rules
- Whether forfeiture of security deposits violates Article 300A of the Constitution
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of royalty for the period they were prevented from mining
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 300A
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — s. 15, 23-C, 26
Subjects
- sand mining
- mining lease surrender
- security deposit forfeiture
- Rule 50
- Bihar Sand Mining Policy 2019
- statutory vs contractual provisions
- natural justice
- Article 300A
- executive instructions
- royalty refund
- e‑transit challans
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6393 of 2025
======================================================
Lalan Kumar Son of Late Mahendra Rai, resident of Chitarchak, P.O. Pahleja
Badka, P.S. Sonepur, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6468 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Todays Fashion, through its Proprietor Md. Dawood Khan, Male, aged
about 37 years, Son of Md. Sabir Khan, resident of Islam Nagar, Gondapur,
Nawada, P.S. Nawada, District- Nawada, Bihar- 805110.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Mines and
Geology Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Nawada.
4. The District Mining Officer, Nawada.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6578 of 2025
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son of Yamuna Singh Yadav Resident of Village- Ekbalganj,
Nisarpura, P.S-Rani Talab Kanpa,Dist -Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
2/53
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The principal Secretary Cum Mines and Geology department, Government
of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Officer, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur, Patna.
6. The District Mining Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6905 of 2025
======================================================
Rana Uday Pratap Singh Son of Rana Ranvijay Pratap Singh Resident of
Village- Bishunpur Nala, Jaiprakash Nagar, P.S.-Dhanbad,District-Dhanbad
Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Cikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur.
5. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur.
6. The District Mining Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6991 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Awanish Construction, a Partnership firm, through its Partner Subhash
Singh aged about 56 Years (Male), Son of Ramchandar Singh, Resident of
Vilalge-Olipur, Khawazepur, P.S.- Yadopur, District-Gopalganj, Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
3/53
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur.
5. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6992 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Awanish Construction, a Partnership firm, through its Partner Subhash
Singh, aged about 56 Years (Male), Son of Ramchandar Singh, Resident of
Village-Olipur, Khawazepur, P.S.- Yadopur, District- -Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Asistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur.
5. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7141 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Gokul Sai Udyog LLP a Limited Liability Partnership registered under
the Limited Liability Partnership Act, through its partner Dhananjay Kumar,
aged about 41 years (male), son of Akhilesh Singh, resident of Village
Ekbalganj, Nisarpura, P.S.- Rani Talab Kanpa, District Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
4/53
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur, Patna.
6. The District Mining Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7398 of 2025
======================================================
Todays Fashion through its proprietor Md Dawood Khan, Male, aged about
37 years, Son of Md. Sabir Khan, resident of Islam Nagar, Gondapur,
Nawada, Bihar- 805110.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Mines and
Geology Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya.
4. The District Mining Officer, Gaya.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7415 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Rana Enterprises a proprietorship firm, through its sole proprietor Rana
Saurav, aged about 31 years (male), son of Rana Uday Pratap Singh, resident
of Village Bishunpur Nala, Jaiprakash Nagar, P.S. Dhanbad, District -
Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
5/53
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
6. The District Mining Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17896 of 2025
======================================================
Lav Kumar Singh Son of Ram Adhya Singh, Resident of Near Suraksha
Clinic, Hetlibandh, P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur.
5. The Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18078 of 2025
======================================================
Damas Civil Construction India Private Limited a company-incorporated
under Companies Act, having its office at ward no.18, Near Kaimur Astambh,
Belwatia Pokhara, Kaimur, Bhabhua through its Director Mukesh Kumar,
Male- aged about 44 years, Son of Abhiram Sharma, Resident Bambhai, P.S.
and District- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Mines
Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines
and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
6/53
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
5. The District Mining Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6393 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, S.C.-7
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6468 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya
Mr. Abhishekh Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar S.C.- 09
Mr. Yohesh Kumar, AC to S.C.-09
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6578 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : S.C. - 15
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6905 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, G.P. -19
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6991 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-03
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
7/53
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6992 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : G.A.-05
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7141 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : S.C.-16
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7398 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
For the State : G.P. - 04
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7415 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : S.C.-18
For the Mines Department: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17896 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P. 16
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastav, A.C. to G.P. 16
For the Mines Department : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18078 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Jay Karan, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
8/53
For the State : SC- 22
For the Mines Department : 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
Since these cases involve similar factual position
and questions, they have been heard together and are being
disposed by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners herein had participated in the
auction of different sand ghats across the State of Bihar and
upon emerging as the highest bidders in the respective auction
processes, they had deposited the earnest money deposits
(E.M.D) and went through the process of securing the
environmental clearances, finally leading to execution and
registration of their respective mining lease deeds between the
petitioners and the respondent-State and thereafter
commencement of mining activities at the respective sand ghats.
3. The prayers in these writ petitions are for
quashing the respective letters issued by the respondent-
Collectors of various districts whereby the surrender of the
settlement of the sand ghats has been rejected and the respective
security deposits furnished by the petitioners have been
forfeited. The petitioners have further prayed for directing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
9/53
respondents to accept the surrender of their respective
settlements of the concerned sand ghats and also to refund the
security deposits of the petitioners.
4. In C.W.J.C. No. 17896 of 2025, titled as
‘Lav Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors.’ the
petitioner has additionally challenged the appellate order
contained in memo no.4733 dated 25.08.2025 passed by the
respondent Mines Commissioner in Appeal No.11 of 2025,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-Lav Kumar
Singh under Rule 67 (2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession,
Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2019 was dismissed and refused to be entertained on the ground
of limitation holding that the Mines Commissioner does not
have the power to condone delay in filing appeal.
5. The petitioner-M/s Awanish Construction has
further preferred C.W.J.C No.6991 of 2025, titled as M/s
Awanish Construction vs State of Bihar & Ors., inter alia
praying for the following further reliefs:-
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
to the Respondents to refund the proportionate
royalty amount for a period of 70 days during
which the petitioner was precluded from
conducting mining activity at Bhojpur Sone
Sand Ghat No. 10 on account of a) restriction
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
10/53
imposed upon generation of e-challans b) delay
caused by the Respondent in activating the
secondary loading area and c) on account of
restriction imposed by SEIAA contrary to the
terms of the NIT and Agreement.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold
that the action of the Respondent Authorities in
not granting proportionate remission in royalty
for the period during which period the petitioner
was restrained/prohibited from conducting
mining activity for absolutely no fault on its
part, is completely illegal, arbitrary and non-est
in the eyes of law.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that according to Rule 51(4) of Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2019, a settlee is obligated to pay royalty only
for mineral "extracted" and "removed" by it.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that the action of the Respondents in
obtaining the entire amount of royalty and not
allowing the petitioner to conduct mining
activity amounts to unjust enrichment.
(v) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the
Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
6. According to the petitioners, in the month of
February, 2024 a condition was imposed by the respondent
Mining Department, to the effect, that settlees could not
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
11/53
generate more than a fixed number of e-transit challans per day
and further according to the petitioners, this restriction was
irrespective of the quantum of sand being transported on the
vehicles of the petitioners, rather the restriction was imposed on
the number of vehicles itself. The restriction was imposed on the
online portal of the respondent-Department which the
petitioners were using for generating the e-transit challans.
According to the petitioners, such restriction was imposed on
the pretext of controlling the problem of traffic jam arising on
account of transportation of sand. The petitioners requested the
respondent authorities to increase the number of e-transit
challans, however, the same was not accepted.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that as per
Rules 39 and 43 of the 2019 Rules, storage and transportation of
sand can be done only on the basis of a valid e-transit challans,
therefore, on account of restriction on the generation of
challans, the petitioners were precluded from selling sand and
this action of the respondent authorities resulted in losses to the
petitioners and therefore, they submitted letters / exit notices to
the respective Collectors of the different districts surrendering
the settlement of their respective sand ghats. The Collectors
directed for conducting replenishment study after which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
12/53
surrender would be considered in compliance of Clause-18 of
the Bihar Sand Mining Policy, 2019, Clause-37 of the N.I.T. and
Clause-10 of the lease deed. Thereafter, the Collectors sought
guidelines from the concerned department in the matter, which
was responded to by the Director, Department of Mines and
Geology stating therein that settlement holders had participated
in the e-auction only after accepting all the terms and conditions
stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) for the
settlement of sand ghats and the agreements have been executed
incorporating the provisions of the Bihar Sand Mining Policy,
2019, the Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019, as well as the
conditions prescribed in the tender document. It was further
stated that the agreements have been duly accepted by the
settlement holder and the agreements executed with the sand
settlement holders explicitly stipulates that, in the event of the
settlement being surrendered, the security deposit, along with
any other amounts deposited by the settlement holder, shall be
forfeited.
8. Subsequently, the surrender letters / exit
notices were rejected by the Collectors and the earnest money
deposits/ security deposits of the petitioners were forfeited. This
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
13/53
forms the nucleus of the present controversy.
9. The writ petitioners have principally
challenged the rejection of their respective surrender of the
settled sand ghats and forfeiture of their earnest money deposit/
security deposit, which for brevity and convenience is
summarized as under:-
Case No. Cause Title Date of Surrender Impugned Amount
& Sand ghat settled in Execution / by the Rejection Forfeited in
favour of the petitioners registration settlee / order Rs.
of date of
agreement exit notice.
1. C.W.J.C No. 6393 of 21.11.2023 04.05.2024 Letter No. 8,85,16,800/-
2025, titled as ‘Lalan 467, dated
Kumar vs State of Bihar 05.03.2025
& Ors.’
Patna Sone Sand Ghat
No. 06 settled in favour
of Petitioner - Lalan
Kumar
2. C.W.J.C No. 6468 of 22.11.2023 21.05.2024 Letter No. 3,76,65,000/-
2025, titled as ‘M/s 332, dated
Today’s Fashion vs. State 21.02.2025
of Bihar & Ors.’
Sand Block – 05
(Jamuawan Patwa
Saray Sand Ghat)
settled in favour of the
petitioner proprietor firm
M/s Today’s Fashion
3. C.W.J.C. No.6578 of 14.12.2023 13.05.2024 Letter No. 11,58,52,275/-
2025, titled as ‘Sanjay 466, dated
Kumar vs. State of Bihar 05.03.2025
& Ors.’
Patna Sone Sand Ghat
No. 10 settled in favour
of Petitioner- Sanjay
Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
14/53
4. C.W.J.C No.6905 of 12.12.2023 08.04.2024 Letter No. 4,11,75,000/-
2025, titled as ‘Rana 610, dated
Uday Pratap Singh vs. 21.02.2025
State of Bihar & Ors.’
Bhojpur Sand Ghat No.
16 settled in favour of
Petitioner- Rana Uday
Pratap Singh
5. C.W.J.C. No. 6992 of 30.11.2023 18.05.2024 Letter No. 5,34,60,000/-
2025, titled as ‘M/s. 609, dated
Awanish Construction vs. 21.02.2025
State of Bihar & Ors.’
Bhojpur Sone Sand
Ghat No.10 settled in
favour of Petitioner
partnership firm M/s
Awanish Construction.
6. C.W.J, C. No. 7141 of 31.01.2024 18.07.2024 Letter No. 5,93,40,600/-
2025, titled as ‘M/s 472, dated
Gokul Sai Udyog LLP vs 05.03.2025
The State of Bihar’
Patna Sone Sand
Cluster 13 (Sand Ghat
No. 16) settled in favour
of the petitioner M/s
Gokul Sai Udyog LLP
7. C.W.J.C. No.7398 of 21.05.2024 04.09.2024 Letter No. 1,29,93,750/-
2025, titled as ‘Today’s 663, dated
Fashion vs State of Bihar 05.03.2025
& Ors.’
Sand Ghat No. 39,
(Gaya Budh) settled in
favour of the proprietor
firm M/s Today’s
Fashion.
8. C.W.J.C No. 7415 of 04.03.2024 03.10.2024 Letter No. 15,05,76,975/-
2025, titled as ‘M/s Rana 470, dated
Enterprises vs. The State 05.03.2025
Of Bihar, & Ors.’
Patna Sone Sand
Cluster – 11 (Sand ghat
Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14)
settled in favour of the
proprietor M/s Rana
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
15/53
Enterprises.
9. C.W.J.C No. 17896 of 18.12.2023 05.04.2024 Letter No. 4,23,22,500/-
2025, titled as ‘Lav 612, dated
Kumar Singh vs. The 21.02.2025
State Of Bihar And Ors’
Bhojpur Sone Sand
Ghat No. 19 settled in
favour of the Petitioner-
Lav Kumar Singh.
10. C.W.J.C No. 18078 20.03.2024 27.05.2024 Letter 11,55,01,950/-
of 2025, titled as ‘Damas No.468,
Civil Construction India dated
Private Limited vs. The 05.03.2025
State Of Bihar & Ors.’
Patna Sone Sand Ghat
No.05 settled in favour of
the petitioner company-
Damas Civil
Construction India
Private Limited.
10. The impugned order dated 05.03.2025,
passed by the Collector, Patna in the case of the petitioner-
Lalan Kumar reads as under :-
“vkns'k
iVuk ftykUrxZr lksu unh ds ckyw[k.M dyLVj la[;k & 06 dk
vkxkeh ik¡p o"kksaZ ds fy;s cUnkscLrh gsrq çdkf'kr foKkiu ds vkyksd
esa fnukad&17-10-2022 dks lEiUu bZ&uhykeh esa eså yyu dqekj]
firk& Loå egsUæ jk;] irk& fNrjpd] ikså& igystk cM+dk] Fkkuk&
lksuiqj] ftyk& lkj.k] fcgkj& 841101 }kjk lqjf{kr tek jkf'k :0&
11]06]46]000@- ¼X;kjg djksM+ N% yk[k fN;kyhl gtkj :å ek=½ ds
fo#) :0 35]40]67]200@& ¼iSfrl djksM+ pkfyl yk[k lM+lB
gtkj nks lkS :å ek=½ dh mPpre~ cksyh ds QyLo:i lQy
Mkdoäk ?kksf"kr gq,A fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&20(i) ds
çko/kkukuqlkj mPpre~ cksyh dk 25% jkf'k ¼vxz/ku jkf'k
eks0&2]76]61]500@& :i;s ds lek;kstu mijkUr½ esa 'ks"k çfrHkwfr
jkf'k eks0&6]08]55]300@& ¼N% djksM+ vkB yk[k ipiu gtkj rhu
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
16/53
lkS :å½ :i;s Hkqxrku ds QyLo:i mä ckyw/kkV ds fy, eså yyu
dqekj] firk& Loå egsUæ jk; dks dk;kZy; i=kad&2836@,e0]
iVuk] fnukad&08-11-2022 }kjk lS)kafrd Loh—R;kns'k fuxZr fd;k
x;kA mPpre Mkdoäk eså yyu dqekj] firk& Loå egsUæ jk; }kjk
RQP ls [kuu ;kstuk rS;kj djkdj [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx esa
vuqeksnu gsrq lefiZr fd;k x;k] ftls fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku]
voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ;Fkk
la'kksf/kr 2021 ds- fu;e&17 esa of.kZr çko/kkuksa ds rgr [kku ,oa
HkwrRo foHkkx ds i=kad&5762@,eå] fnukad&24-11-2022 }kjk
vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS rFkk eså yyu dqekj] firk& Loå egsUæ jk;
}kjk oS/kkfud vukifÙk ;Fkk EC, CTE/CTO çkIr djus ds fy,
lkjh okafNr çfØ;k iw.kZ djrs gq, EC, CTE/CTO fnukad&10-11-
2023 rd çkIr djus ds mijkar fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr 2019 dh
dafMdk 9 (iii) ,oa fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk& 24 (ii) ds rgr~
fu;ekuqlkj çFke fdLr dh jkf'k rFkk bl ij ns; vU; djksa dk
Hkqxrku dj ,djkjukek fu"iknu djk;k x;kA rnksijkar dk;kZy;
i=kad&4235@[kuu] fnukad&29-11-2023 }kjk iVuk lksu unh ds
ckyw[k.M dyLVj la[;k & 06 ls ckyw [kuu@ çs"k.k dh vuqefr
gsrq dk;kZns'k fuxZr fd;k x;kA blh Øe esa iVuk lksu unh ds
ckyw[k.M dyLVj la[;k& 06 ds cUnkscLr/kkjh ds i=kad&'kwU;]
fnukad&04-05-2024 }kjk “Qjojh ls pkyku dk Ly‚V O;oLFkk dk
ykxw gksuk] ftldh iwoZ tkudkjh O;oLFkk cksyhnkrk dks ugha gksuk
fnlEcj vkSj tuojh vkSj B.< vkSj dksgjk ds ekSle esa ckyw
[kuu ,oa ifjogu esa ijs'kkuh gksrh gS] ftlds otg ls fcØh çHkkfor
jgrk gSA Qjojh ls vçSy esa daLVªD'ku odZ vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k
cktkj esa ckyw dh ekax vf/kd gksrh gS ijarq Ly‚fVax O;oLFkk ykxq
gksus ls fcØh çHkkfor gksuk” mYys[k djrs gq, cUnkscLrh çR;kiZ.k
djus laca/kh vkosnu lefiZr fd;k x;kA
2- cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk çR;kiZ.k gsrq lefiZr vkosnu ds
vkyksd esa dk;kZy; i=kad&2014@[kuu] iVuk] fnukad&10-06-
2024 }kjk iquHkZj.k v/;;u djk;s tkus gsrq fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr]
2019 dh dafMdk la[;k& 18 rFkk cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk fu"ikfnr
,djkjukek dk dafMdk& 10 (i) ,oa ¼ii½ ds vkyksd esa cUnkscLr/kkjh
ds vkosnu ij iqufoZpkj djus laca/kh i= fuxZr fd;k x;kA ijUrq
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
17/53
cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk iqu% i=kad&'kwU;] fnukad&29-06-2024 }kjk
"CMPDIL Ranchi }kjk ckyw?kkV dk iquHkZj.k v/;;u tks 2022
esa djk;k x;k ,oa muds }kjk çsf"kr iquHkZj.k çfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij
vkSlru 112 çfr'kr ckyw dh miyC/krk ckj&ckj mYys[k fd;k tk
jgk gSA rnksijkar dksbZ v/;;u ugha djk;k x;kA CMPDIL
Ranchi }kjk çsf"kr Post Monsoon dh MkVk tks vDVwcj 2022
ls twu 2024 rd ?kkV lapkfyr fd;k x;k gSA NIT ds 'kÙkksa vFkok
LOI esa dgha Hkh ;g mYys[k ugha gS fd BMSCL ds }kjk ekuuh;
loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj October 2023 ls June 2024
rd ?kkV lapkfyr fd;k tk,xkA ?kkV ij xkM+h vkxeu dk la[;k
dkQh Fkk ftlds vk/kkj ij rqyukRed :i ls dkQh mPp cksyh nkrk
ds :i esa fufonk gkfly dh xbZ ijarq fcuk dksbZ iwoZ lwpuk@'krZ ds
Slotting System ds ykxw gksus ls O;olk; ij çfrdqy çHkko iMk
vkSj ?kkV lapkyu djus esa dkQh vkfFkZd {kfr dk lkeuk djuk iM+k]
mYys[k djrs gq, cUnkscLrh çR;kiZ.k djus laca/kh vkosnu lefiZr
fd;k x;kA
ijarq cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk bl lanHkZ esa iqu% ckyw?kkV lapkyu
dh fn'kk esa ç;kl ugha fd;k x;kA foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k&2650]
fnukad& 14-08-2019 }kjk lalwfpr fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr 2019 dh
dafMdk la[;k& 18] fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk la[;k&& 31]
cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek dh dafMdk la[;k&10 ,oa
fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½
fu;ekoyh] 2019 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 2024½ ds fu;e 50 ¼2½ ,oa ¼3½ rFkk
cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk iVuk lksu ckyw?kkV dyLVj la[;k&10 gsrq
çR;kiZ.k vkosnu esa of.kZr rF;ksa@fcUnqvksa esa Li"Vrk ugha gksus ds
dkj.k dk;kZy; i=kad&3076@[kuu] iVuk] fnukad&14-10-2024 }kjk
çR;kiZ.k dh Loh—fr ,oa cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk tek çfrHkwfr jkf'k dks
okil djus ds fcUnq ij [kku ,oa HkwrÙo foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ls
ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh xbZ FkhA
3- iVuk lksu ckyw?kkV dyLVj la[;k& 10 ds
cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk f}rh; o"kZ dh cUnkscLrh dh f}rh; fdLr dh
jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd, tkus ds vkyksd esa fufonk nLrkost dh
dafMdk la[;k&24 (ii) rFkk fu"ikfnr fucaf/kr ,djkjukek ds
v/;k;& V dafMdk& 2(ii) ds vuqlkj ";fn fdLrksa ds Hkqxrku djus
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
18/53
esa cUnkscLr/kkjh vlQy gksrk gS rks vkxs bZ&pkyku flLVe }kjk can
dj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj dsoy vfxze Hkqxrku dj fn;s tkus ds ckn gh
[kksyk tk;sxk ,oa blds fy, fdlh rjg ds {kfriwfrZ dk dksbZ nkok
ekU; ugha gksxkA" rn~uqlkj dk;kZy; i=kad& 3436@[kuu]
fnukad&28-11-2024 }kjk mä ckyw?kkV dh çFke o"kZ dh cUnkscLrh
dh vafre frfFk& 28-11-2024 dh e/; jkf= ls bZ&pkyku can djkrs
gq, ckyw?kkV dk lapkyu cUn dj fn;k x;kA
4- blh Øe esa foHkkxh; i=kad 89@ ,eå] iVuk]
fnukad&08-01-2025 }kjk cUnkscLrh çR;kiZ.k ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu
miyC/k djk;k x;k] ftlesa of.kZr gS fd "cUnkscLr/kkfj;ksa }kjk ckyw?
kkVksa dh cUnkscLrh gsrq vkeaf=r fufonk dh lHkh 'kÙkksa dks Lohdkj dj
gh bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx fy;k x;k gSA ;gk¡ mYys[kuh; gS fd fcgkj
ckyw [kuu uhfr] 2019] fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu]
ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 rFkk fufonk esa
fu/kkZfjr 'krZ dks 'kkfey djrs gq, ,djkjukek fu"ikfnr djkbZ xbZ gS]
tks cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA çlaxk/khu ekeys esa ckyw
cUnkscLr/kkfj;ksa ds lkFk fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek esa cUnkscLrh NksM+s tkus
dh fLFkfr esa cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk tek çfrHkwfr jkf'k lfgr vU; jkf'k
tIr djus dk mYys[k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fu"ikfnr ,djkjukek ds
vuq:i dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gSA”
5- fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr 2019 dh dafMdk la[;k&11]
fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&7 ¼[k½] dafMdk&15] dafMdk&22 ,oa
dafMdk&&31 rFkk cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk fu"ikfnr @ fucaf/kr
,djkjukek dk v/;k;& III dh dafMdk& 10 rFkk fcgkj [kfut
¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh]
2019 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ ds fu;e&50 ¼4½ esa fuEufyf[kr çko/kku gS %&
➢ fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr 2019 dh dafMdk
la[;k&11%& cUnkscLrh foys[k ¼MhM½ fu"iknu djuk
%& lQy chMj dks 5 o"kksaZ dh vof/k ds fy, ckyw [kuu
djus gsrq lekuqnku vokMZ fn;k tk,xkA lQy chMj fofgr
çi= esa cUnkscLrh foys[k lacaf/kr fu;e vFkok mlds le:i
,d fofgr çi= esa dk;Z vkjaHk djus ds igys] fu"ikfnr vkSj
fucaf/kr djsxk rFkk ;Fkk fofgr visf{kr çfrHkwfr jkf'k tek
dj nsxkA
➢ fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&7 ¼[k½%& fufonk
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
19/53
dh 'krksaZ ,oa cU/kstksa ds çR;sd i`"B ij eqgj ds lkFk gLrk{kj
dj rduhdh fufonk ds fy, dkxtkr iksVZy ij viyksM
fd;k tkuk gSA
➢ fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&15%& lHkh bPNqd
fufonknkrk bZ&uhykeh gsrq iathdj.k djus ,oa v‚u&ykbZu
vkosnu djus ls iwoZ fu;e ,oa 'krksaZ dks vPNh rjg ls i<+
ysaA vkosnu djus ds ckn ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd fufonknkrkvksa
}kjk fu;e ,oa 'krksaZ dks /;ku ls i<+ fy;k x;k gS rFkk lHkh
fu;e 'krsaZ mudks ekU; gSA ckn esa bl laca/k esa fdlh Hkh
çdkj dk nkok@vkifÙk vLohdk;Z gksxkA
➢ fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&22 ¼i½ cUnkscLrh
foys[k@iêk lafonk ¼MhM½ fu"iknu djuk%& lQy Mkdoäk
}kjk lHkh oS/kkfud vukifÙk çkIr djus ds mijkar 5 o"kksaZ dh
vof/k ds fy, ckyw [kuu djus gsrq lekuqnku@cUnkscLrh
Loh—r fd;k tk,xkA lQy Mkdoäk fofgr çi= esa
lacaf/kr fu;ekuqlkj cUnkscLrh foys[k vFkok mlds
le:i ,d çi=] dk;Z vkjaHk djus ds igys] fu"ikfnr
djsxk rFkk ;Fkk fofgr visf{kr çfrHkwfr jkf'k tek nsxkA
cUnkscLr/kkjh ds iês dh vof/k foys[k@lafonk fu"iknu dh
frfFk ls ik¡p o"kksaZ ds fy, fof/kekU; gksxkA
➢ fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk & 31%& cUnkscLrh
@ lekuqnku dk çR;kiZ.k%&
I- cUnkscLr/kkjh ds cUnkscLrh NksM+us ds iwoZ ml
iapkax o"kZ dh lEiw.kZ cUnkscLrh jkf'k tek djuh
gksxhA cUnkscLrh çR;kfiZr djus dh fLFkfr esa tek
lEiw.kZ çfrHkwfr jkf'k ds lkFk&lkFk Hkqxrku dh xbZ
vU; jkf'k dks tIr dj yh tk;sxhA lkFk gh
cUnkscLr/kkjh ds :i esa fuxZr HkaMkj.k vuqKfIr Hkh
Lor% jí le>h tk,xhA
II- cUnkscLrh leiZ.k ds ekeys esa lekgrZ~rk }kjk
cdk;k Hkqxrku ds fy, 21 fnu dk uksfVl nsus ds
ckn Hkh jkf'k tek ugha djus ij cdk;k olwyh ds
fy, fcgkj ,oa mM+hlk yksd ekax vf/kfu;e] 1914
ds rgr~ dk;Zokgh çkajHk dh tk;sxhA
➢ बनददबसतधधरर दधरध ननषपधनदत एकरधरनधमध कध अधयधय-
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
20/53
iii कक ककनडकध सकखयध-10 :- Exit/Surrender
option of Mineral Concession
Holder/Settlee:-
a. It will be necessary to deposit the
entire settlement amount of that
related year by the settlee before
exit from the settlement period. In
case of surrender of settlement,
the entire security amount along
with the other amount paid by the
Settlee will be forfeited and at the
same time the storage license (K-
License) issued in favour of the
settlee will be also cancelled itself.
b. In case of surrender of settlement,
if due payment is not received
within 21 days from the notice
issued by the Collector,
proceeding will be initiated under
the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914 to
recover the said due amount.
➢ fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa
Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½
ds fu;e&50¼4½%&
/kks[kk/kM+h ;k [kuu vFkok i;kZoj.kh; 'krksaZ
ds mYya?ku ;k çfrosfnr dh xbZ fdlh vU;
vfu;ferrkvksa dh fLFkfr dkjksckj NksM+us dk dksbZ
fodYi [kfut lekuqnku /kkjd dks miyC/k ugha
jgsxk vkSj mudh çfrHkwfr tek tIr gks tk,xhA
6- cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk uk rks f}rh; o"kZ ds çFke
fdLr dk Hkqxrku lle; fd;k x;k gS vkSj uk gh mä
ckyw?kkV ds lapkyu gsrq ,djkjukek foys[k dk fu"iknu
djk;k x;k gSA cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk fufonk nLrkost dh
dafMdk la[;k&31 ftlesa cUnkscLrh NksM+s tkus dh fLFkfr esa
çfrHkwfr jkf'k ds lkFk vU; lHkh jkf'k tIr djus dh 'krZ
fu/kkZfjr Fkh] dks Lohdkj djus ds ckn gh fufonk esa Hkkx
fy;k FkkA lkFk gh cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk lefiZr ,oa gLrk{kfjr
,djkjukek ds v/;k; III dh dafMdk la[;k&10 esa Hkh
cUnkscLrh NksM+s tkus dh fLFkfr esa çfrHkwfr jkf'k ds lkFk
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
21/53
vU; lHkh jkf'k tIr djus dh 'krZ Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA
mi;qZä 'kÙkksa dks Lohdkj djus ds ckotwn cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk
fu;e fo:) ckyw?kkV çR;kiZ.k dk vkosnu nh x;h gS] tks
fu;ekuqdwy ,oa Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA
7- vr% mi;qZä rF;ksa ,oa fu"ikfnr @fucaf/kr
,djkjukek dh v/;k;&III dh dafMdk 10 (i)(ii), fufonk
nLrkost dh dafMdk& 31] fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k
[kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ¼;Fkk
la'kksf/kr½ ds fu;e 50 ¼4½ ds rgr~ eså yyu dqekj] firk
Loå egsUæ jk; }kjk lefiZr çR;kiZ.k vkosnu dks [kkfjt
djrs gq, cUnkscLr/kkjh }kjk tek çfrHkwfr jkf'k
8]85]16]800@& ¼vkB djksM+ ipklh yk[k lksyg gtkj vkB
lkS :å½ :å dks tIr fd;k tkrk gSA
8- fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu]
ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;koeyh] 2019 ¼;Fkk
le;≤ ij la'kksf/kr½ ds fu;e&67 ds rgr~ Þikfjr
vafre vkns'k ds 60 fnuksa ds Hkhrj l{ke çkf/kdkj ds le{k
vihyh; gksaxs" çko/kkfur gSA
gå@&
lekgrZ~rk]
iVukA”
11. Learned counsels for the petitioners have
submitted that the petitioners were settlees of sand ghats and
have duly surrendered the sand ghats settled in their favour in
compliance of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (for short
“2019 Rules”), however, the respondent authorities have first
arbitrarily sat over the surrender / exit notices and thereafter,
rejected the same and forfeited the earnest money / security
deposits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
22/53
12. Learned counsels for the petitioners have
drawn the attention of this Court to Rule-50(1) of the 2019
Rules to contend that the respective sand ghat settlees have duly
adhered to the time line of six months’ notice before
surrendering their lease and therefore, it was unlawful for the
respondent authorities to arbitrarily reject their respective
surrenders and thereafter forfeit their earnest money deposits/
security deposits relying upon the provisions of the tender
documents and the provisions of the lease deed when the Rules
of 2019 must prevail over such stipulations.
13. It has been submitted by learned counsels for
the petitioners that the impugned letters of rejection of surrender
of sand ghats in questions are bad in law and are fit to be set
aside since according to Rule 50 (1) of the 2019 Rules, a settlee
can surrender its settlement by giving six months’ notice. In all
these cases, the respective sand ghat settlees have duly given six
months’ notice before surrendering their respective sand ghats
in accordance with Rule 50(1) of the 2019 Rules and therefore,
they have surrendered within the stipulated time. It has further
been submitted that it is not the import of Rule-50 of the 2019
Rules, that at the time of surrendering the settlement of a sand
ghat, a settlee is bound to justify the surrender by giving reasons
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
23/53
and submit evidences in support of such reasons. It is the
categorical submission on behalf of the petitioners that a settlee
can surrender its settlement for any reason whatsoever. It is also
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
there is no provision under the 2019 Rules for forfeiture of the
security amount / earnest money deposit in case of surrender
and whenever there is a conflict, then the statutory provision
shall prevail over any policy decision of the State, therefore the
respondents could not have relied upon Clauses of the policy
documents, N.I.T or the lease deed to forfeit the security deposit
of the petitioners particularly in absence of an express provision
under the 2019 Rules.
14. The next submission of learned counsels for
the petitioners is that on perusal of impugned letters of rejection
of respective surrenders of sand ghats would show that the
respondent-Collectors have relied upon clauses 7(kha), 15, 22
and 31 of the Tender Documents, Clause-11 of the Bihar Sand
Mining Policy, 2019, Clause 10 under Part-III of the mining
lease deed and Rule 50 (4) of the 2019 Rules, however it is
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, out of the above said
provisions, Clause 31 of the Tender document, Clause 10 of
Part-III of the Agreement and Rule 50 (4) of the 2019 Rules are
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
24/53
relevant for the present purpose of surrender of sand ghats
allotted to the petitioners.
15. Adverting to Clause 31 of the Tender
Document, it is submitted that the aforesaid Clause is wholly
contrary to Rule 50(2) of the 2019 Rules, which provides that
"the collector may allow such mineral concession holder to exit
the business and return any security money deposited by the
mineral concession holder after deducting such dues as are
recoverable". Further, according to the Rule 29-B(2) of the 2019
Rules, the settlement deed has to be executed in Form-B as
prescribed in the 2019 Rules and a perusal of the aforesaid
Form-B appended to the 2019 Rules would clearly show that it
does not contain any provision for forfeiture of security deposit
in case of surrender, yet, respondent authorities unilaterally
made certain changes in the model agreement and stringent
provisions relating to forfeiture of security deposit were added
contrary to the model Form-B under Claus-10 of Part-III of the
mining lease deed.
16. It is next submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that, Clause 10 under Part III of the mining lease
deed is highly onerous and is therefore void ab initio and
unenforceable, in view of the principles laid down by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
25/53
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited vs. Brajo Nath reported in 1986 (3) SCC
156.
17. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that due to this action of incorporating Clause-10
under Part-III in the lease deed by the respondent authorities,
the petitioners were subjected to a highly onerous standard
format of agreement without any opportunity of negotiation and
discussion. It is further submitted that incorporation of such
provision with respect to forfeiture of security deposit is directly
in conflict with Rule 50(2) of the 2019 Rules. It is emphasized
by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that Rule
50(2) of the 2019 Rules clearly provides for return of the
security deposits in case of surrender, whereas in complete
contradiction to the same, the agreement under Part-III Clause
10 provides for forfeiture of the security deposit without any
exception. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsels for
the petitioner that such discrepancy cannot be countenanced
much less be arbitrarily enforced in the eyes of law.
18. The learned Counsels for the petitioners have
drawn strength from the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
26/53
Inc. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that at the stage of
entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive
capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. It has also
been held that a writ can be issued where there is executive
action unsupported by law.
19. It has been submitted by learned counsels for
the petitioners that incorporation of highly onerous Clause- 31
in the tender terms and conditions and Clause 10 under Part-III
of the mining lease deed by the respondent authorities is de hors
the 2019 Rules and therefore, the action of rejection of
surrender and forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is highly
arbitrary and directly in conflict with Rule 50(2) of the 2019
Rules and cannot stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. It is settled proposition of law that if the tender terms
are contrary to the statutory rules, the same are void and
unenforceable.
20. Learned counsels for the petitioners have
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910.
21. It is further argued by the learned counsels
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
27/53
for the petitioners that it is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders or office memorandum or
executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules.
Instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory
Rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be
subservient to the statutory provisions.
22. In this regard, learned counsels for the
petitioners have relied upon the following decisions: -
i. Union of India and Ors. vs. Majji
Jangammayya and Ors. reported as AIR
1977 SC 757;
ii. P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and
Ors. reported as AIR 1987 SC 1676;
iii. Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Ors. v. Union
of India and Anr. reported as AIR 1990 SC
166;
iv. C. Rangaswamaiah and Ors. v. Karnataka
Lokayukta and Ors. reported as AIR 1998
SC 2496;
v. JAC of Airlines Pilots Association of India
and Ors. v. The Director General of Civil
Aviation and Ors. reported as AIR 2011 SC
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
28/53
2220).
23. It is next submitted that it is also settled
proposition of law that forfeiture of security deposit is
permissible only if the same is not excessive and should not
amount to penalty, however in the present cases, from a perusal
of the impugned letters would reveal that the security deposits
have been forfeited as a penalty for surrender of settlement and
further, the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of
hearing before passing the impugned letters and no show-cause
notices were issued in this regard. It has been submitted that
opportunity of hearing is mandatory when civil consequences
are involved. It is also argued that in the present cases, the
impugned letters forfeiting the security deposits have been
issued upon a direction from the superior authorities without
application of mind and as such, are fit to be set aside. In this
regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad
Singh and Ors. reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505, wherein it has
been held as under:-
"55.It is true that in exercise of powers of
revoking or cancelling the permission is
akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
29/53
complexion and that in exercising of the
former power the authority must bring to
bear an unbiased mind, consider
impartially the objections raised by the
aggrieved party and decide the matter
consistent with the principles of natural
justice. The authority cannot permit its
decision to be influenced by the dictation
of others as this would amount to
abdication and surrender of its
discretion. It would then not be the
Authority's discretion that is exercised,
but someone else's. If an authority
"hands over its discretion to another
body it acts ultra-vires". Such an
interference by a person or body
extraneous to the power would plainly be
contrary to the nature of the power
conferred upon the authority. De Smith
sums up the position thus:
"The relevant principles
formulated by the courts may be
broadly summarised as follows.
The authority in which a
discretion is vested can be
compelled to exercise that
discretion, but not to exercise it in
any particular manner. In general,
a discretion must be exercised
only by the authority to which it is
committed. That authority must
genuinely address itself to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
30/53
matter before it: it must not act
under the dictation of another
body or disable itself from
exercising a discretion in each
individual case. In the purported
exercise of its discretion it must
not do what it has been forbidden
to do, nor must it do what it has
not been authorised to do. It must
act in good faith, must have
regard to all relevant
considerations and must not be
swayed by irrelevant
considerations, must not seek to
promote purposes alien to the
letter or to the spirit of the
legislation that gives it power to
act, and must not act arbitrarily
or capriciously. Nor where a
judgment must be made that
certain facts exist can a discretion
be validly exercised on the basis of
an erroneous assumption about
those facts. These several
principles can conveniently be
grouped in two main categories:
failure to exercise a discretion,
and excess or abuse of
discretionary power. The two
classes are not. however, mutually
exclusive."
24. At this Stage, Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
31/53
Senior Counsel has re-iterated the phraseology of Rule-50 of the
2019 Rules and has submitted that Clause-10 under Part-III of
the mining lease deed can only be prevented from being in
contravention of the aforesaid Rule-50, if the aforesaid Rule-50
is read to deal only with ‘exit’ of the settlement and entitlement
of the settlee to the return of the amount. In order to buttress his
argument, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Rule-
50 of the 2019 Rules uses the word ‘exit’ whereas Clause-10
under Part-III of the mining lease deed deals with two different
circumstances, that is, firstly, the exit of the settlement and
secondly, of surrender of the settlement. It is the contention of
the learned Senior Counsel that in so far as the exit of the
settlement is concerned, the pre-requisite is deposit of the entire
settlement amount of the concerned year by the settlee before
exit, whereas in case of surrender, the security amount is liable
to be forfeited. It is the categorical submission of the learned
Senior Counsel that the present cases are that of exit and not of
surrender of settlement. The surrender, according to the learned
Senior Counsel, does not carry with it the requirement of six
months’ notice period and pre-deposit of the entire settlement
amount of that relevant year, therefore the exit option as
provided under Rule-50 is distinct from the surrender option
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
32/53
under clause-10 of Part-III of the lease deed. It is emphasized by
the learned Senior Counsel that any other interpretation would
render the aforeaid Clause-10 of the mining lease deed as
wholly contrary to the Rule-50 of the 2019 Rules and as a
settled proposition of law, executive orders or policy decisions
cannot override statutory rules.
25. The learned Senior Counsel has further
submitted that, under Article-300A of the Constitution of India,
the security amount of the petitioners could not have been
forfeited in absence of express enabling statutory provision.
Therefore, it is argued that the actions of the respondents are
wholly violative of Article-300A of the Constitution. In support
of the submissions the learned Senior Counsel has drawn
strength form the following decisions:-
(i) Hindustan Times vs. State of U.P.
reported as (2003) 1 SCC 591,
paragraph nos. 22-24 and 39;
(ii) K. Kuppusamy vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported as (1998) 8 SCC 469,
paragraph no. 3;
(iii) Tigger Goods Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Bihar reported as (2009) 2 BLJ 297
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
33/53
PHC, paragraph nos.25 and 26.
26. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has also
relied upon Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
(supra) and L.I.C. vs. Consumer Education Research Centre
reported as (1995) 5 SCC 482 to argue that if a contract or a
clause thereunder is found to be unreasonable or unfair or
irrational, then it must be considered, if the relative bargaining
power of the contracting parties were unequal and the fact that
contract has been signed on dotted lines by the party having
unequal bargaining power then judicial review would be
available.
27. Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner- Awanish Construction in C.W.J.C.
No.6991 of 2025, submits that the petitioner was precluded
from carrying out mining activity for 70 days for no fault of his
own and therefore he deserves to be refunded the proportionate
royalty amount for the aforesaid period of 70 days during which
he could not carry out the mining activity. The learned counsel
for the petitioner -Awanish Construction, had drawn strength
from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
reported as (2004) 3 SCC 381 and the observations of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
34/53
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitra v. State of Kerala,
reported as (2016) 1 SCC 685.
28. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
answering respondents have submitted that the present writ
petitions are not maintainable since the dispute revolves around
purely contractual obligations and cannot be adjudicated in writ
jurisdiction. In support of this submission, learned counsel for
the answering respondents has relied upon the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of A.B.L.
International Limited vs. ECGC reported as (2004) 3 SCC 553
and in the case of State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics reported as
AIR 2002 SC 206.
29. The learned counsel for the answering
respondents has next submitted that the tender conditions are
binding in nature and the petitioners after having participated in
the same, now the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around
and challenge the same after having accepted and acted upon the
terms and conditions of the tender. The answering respondents
have taken this Court to various Clauses of the Notice Inviting
Tender (N.I.T), that is, Clause-7(b), Clause-15, Clause-22(1)
and Clause-31, to submit that the petitioners cannot escape from
the contractual obligations.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
35/53
30. Adverting to the impugned letters of
rejection of the surrender and forfeiture of the earnest money /
security deposit, the learned counsel for the answering
respondents has submitted that the impugned letters have been
passed strictly in consonance with the terms of the lease deed
and the 2019 Rules, particularly, Clause-10 of the mining lease
deed, which stipulates that the entire security deposit shall be
forfeited if the lease holder surrenders the sand ghat
prematurely. Further, repelling the reliance placed by learned
counsels for the petitioners on Rule-50 of the 2019 Rules, it has
been submitted that the right of surrender is not an absolute
right and Rule-50 allows exit only subject to the terms of the
auction, agreement and payment of dues. It has further been
submitted that Rule-50(4) of the 2019 Rules, categorically
prohibits surrender when penalty is outstanding.
31. It has further been argued by the learned
counsel for the answering respondents that Clause-31 of the NIT
and Clause-10 of the agreement makes express provision for
forfeiture and such forfeiture is a contractual consequence and
not a penalty for surrendering the sand ghat.
32. Clause-31 of the N.I.T. reads as under:-
“¼31½ cankscLrh/lekuqnku dk çR;kiZ.k&
i. cankscLr/kkjh dks cankscLrh NksM+us ds iwoZ ml iapkax o"kZ dh
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
36/53
lEiw.kZ pankscLrh jkf'k tek djuh gksxhA cankscLrh çR;kfiZr
djus dh fLFkfr esa tek lEiw.kZ çfrHkwfr jkf'k ds lkFk&lkFk
Hkqxrku dh xbZ vU; jkf'k dks tIr dj yh tk;sxhA lkFk gh
cankscLr/kkjh ds :i esa fuxZÙk HkaMkj.k vuqKfIr Hkh Lor% jí
le>h tk,xhA
ii. cankscLrh leiZ.k ds ekeys esa lekgrZ~rk }kjk cdk;k
Hkqxrku ds fy, 21 fnu dk uksfVl nsus ds ckn Hkh jkf'k
tek ugha djus ij cdk;k olwyh ds fy, fcgkj ,oa mM+hlk
yksd ekax vf/kfu;e] 1914 ds rgr dk;Zokgh çkjaHk dh
tk;sxhA”
33. The learned counsel for the answering
respondents has emphasized that after having accepted and
having received the benefit of the settlement, the petitioners
cannot now re-writ the contract.
34. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial
Development Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development
Corporation reported as (2013) 5 SCC 470 and Balaji Ventures
Pvt. Limited vs. Maharashtra State Power General Company
Limited & Anr. reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1967, the
learned counsel for the answering respondents have submitted
that a party which has voluntarily entered into a contract with
full knowledge of its terms and conditions and accepted its
benefits by acting upon it, is estopped from later challenging the
contractual conditions itself or seeking to avoid its
consequences.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
37/53
35. Lastly, the learned counsel for the answering
respondents has supported the impugned letters of rejection of
surrender of the respective sand ghats by emphasizing that the
aforesaid letters are reasoned and speaking in nature and rooted
in the applicable contractual and statutory provisions.
36. I have considered the detailed submissions of
the parties and perused the materials available on record.
37. The petitioners emerged as successful
bidders in the respective auction processes and sand ghats were
settled in their favour. The petitioners after complying with the
necessary clearances and approvals including the environmental
clearance, entered into the respective mining lease deeds and
had thereafter commenced mining operations. Subsequently, the
petitioners submitted letters to the respective Collectors,
surrendering the settlement of the sand ghats. The Collectors,
upon seeking guidelines from the Department, ultimately
rejected the surrender of the petitioners, forfeited the security
deposit and revoked the work orders.
38. Before proceeding with the matters, it would
be gainful to refer to the law relating to surrendering sand
mining lease deeds and the consequences therefore.
39. The Government of Bihar issued the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
38/53
Sand Mining Policy, 2019, notified on 14.08.2019 and
thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15
read with Section 23-C and Section 26 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State of
Bihar framed the 2019 Rules. The aforesaid 2019 Rules came
into force with effect from its publication in the Official Gazette
on 17.09.2019.
40. The relevant Clauses of the Bihar Sand
Mining Policy, 2019 notified by the Department of Mines &
Geology, Government of Bihar, relevant for the present purpose,
reads as under:-
“11. Execution of Settlement Deed. The successful
bidder shall be awarded the concession to mine
sand for a period of 5 years. The successful
bidder shall execute and register the settlement
deed in prescribed form of the prevailing rules
or a form as near thereto before starting work
and pay the requisite security deposit as
prescribed.
xxxx
18. Surrender of Concession - Annual settlement
amount shall be paid before surrender of said
sandghat by settlee. In case of surrender, the
security deposit along with other payments
made by him shall be forfeited.”
41. The Rule-50 of the 2019 Rules provide for
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
39/53
an ‘Exit Option’ to the mineral concession holders, which
provides that a mineral concession holder may opt to exit the
business upon giving six months’ notice to the concerned
Collector. The aforesaid Rule 50 of the 2019 Rules reads as
under:-
“50. Exit Option for Mineral Concession Holder. -
(1) Any Mineral Concession Holder, at any
point of the Mineral Concession period, may opt
to exit the business upon giving Six months'
notice to the Collector. However, this option is
not available to Mineral Concession Holder
who have not paid their bidding amount or
settlement amount or have violated any
condition of settlement.
(2) The Collector may allow such Mineral
Concession Holder to exit the business and
return any security money deposited by the
Mineral Concession Holder after deducting
such dues as are recoverable.
(3) The Collector, thereupon, shall initiate
arrangement for a fresh bidding.
(4) In case of fraud or violation of mining or
environmental conditions or any other
irregularities reported, no exit option will be
available to the Mineral Concession Holder
and their security deposit shall be forfeited.”
42. The Rules of 2019, also provides that the
mining lease deed shall be entered into Form-B, which is
appended to and incorporated in the aforesaid Rules of 2019
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
40/53
itself. The Rule 29-B(2) of the 2019 Rules reads as under:-
“CHAPTER – V
SETTLEMENT OF SAND
xxx
29B(2) Award of Concession and Signing of
Deed.— The successful bidder shall be awarded
the concession to mine sand for a period of 5
years. The successful bidder shall execute the
settlement deed in form ‘B’ as prescribed in
this rule or a form as near thereto before
starting work. In case the approval of mining
plan and the environment clearance have not
been obtained, successful bidder shall obtain
the same before the execution of settlement
deed.”
43. Therefore, from the afore-quoted Rule-29-
B(2) of the 2019 Rules, would clearly show that Form-B,
appended to the Rules of 2019, is not only a suggestive model
format, rather it embodies the conditions and covenants that the
parties to a mining lease must bind themselves to. The Form-B
which is appended to the Rules does not contain any Clause-10
in Part-III, that is, the aforesaid Clause which forms the basis
for the respondents to effect forfeiture of the earnest money
deposits of the petitioners does not find place in the original
Form-B appended to the 2019 Rules. This Court has noted that
the Rule-29-B(2) does provide for variations, in as much as, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
41/53
words used therein ‘or a form as near thereto before starting
work’, however, this room for change is provided to prevent
undue rigidity in the covenants of the mining lease deeds,
keeping in view the ground realities of the various districts in
the State of Bihar and one size fits all approach may defeat the
purpose. It is however, clear that the aforesaid provision,
provides flexibility and limited drafting elasticity in form, not
complete freedom to change the substance, more so when a
substantive Rule, i.e., Rule 50 of the governing 2019 Rules,
occupies the filed. The Provision under Rule-29-B(2) provides
for a much needed flexibility, but only variations consistent with
the rules. The variations are meant to address practical
implications and ground realities, but in the garb of the same, a
complete re-writing is wholly impermissible.
44. The present Form-B, as executed between
the parties, contain the following two Clauses that are relevant
for the present purpose are firstly, Clause 3 under Part-VIII of
the lease deed, which reads as under:-
“3. Liberty to surrender the lease: (1) The
lessee/lessees may at any time surrender this
lease by giving not less than Six months’ notice
in writing to the Collector, and upon the
expiration of such notice provided that the
lessee/lessees shall upon such expiration render
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
42/53
and pay all rents, water rates, royalties,
compensation for damages and other moneys
which may then be due and payable under these
presents to the lessor or any other person or
persons and shall deliver these presents to the
State Government then this lease and the said
term and the liberties, powers and privileges
hereby granted shall absolutely cease and
determine but without prejudice to any right or
remedy of the lessor in respect of any breach of
any of the covenants or agreements contained in
these presents.”
45. And secondly, Clause-10 under Part-III of
the lease deed, which reads as under:-
“10. Exit/Surrender option for Mineral Concession
Holder/Settlee:-
(1) It will be necessary to deposit the entire
settlement amount of that settlement
year by the settlee before exit from the
settlement period. In case of surrender
of settlement, the entire security amount
along with the other amount paid by the
Settlee will be forfeited and at the same
time the storage license (K-License)
issued in favor of the settlee will be also
cancelled itself.
(ii) In case of surrender of settlement, if due
payment is not received within 21 days
from the notice issued by the Collector,
proceeding will be initiated under the
Bihar and Orissa Public Demand
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
43/53
Recovery Act, 1914 to recover the said
due amount.”
46. From the perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, it
is inescapable, that Clause-10 under Part-III of the lease deed
executed between the parties is in contravention of the Rule-50,
inasmuch as, on the one hand the Rule-50 contemplates exit by
the mineral concession holders upon satisfying certain
conditions and the forfeiture under sub-rule (4) of Rule- 50 is
only triggered in specific cases of fraud or violation of mining
or environmental conditions or any other irregularities reported
against the lease holder, in which case the exit option shall not
be available and the security amount would stand forfeited. On
the other hand, Clause-10 under Part-III clearly makes no
exception and provides that in case of surrender of settlement,
the entire security amount along with the other amount paid by
the settlee shall be forfeited.
47. It is the settled proposition of law that
executive actions cannot override statutory provisions, which
has been explained by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., reported as 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the applicability
of the letters/administrative instructions issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
44/53
Government of India detailing with the administrative practice
for promotions, against the Indian Police Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1954 and had held as under:-
“7. We proceed to consider the next contention of
Mr. N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any
statutory rules governing promotions to
selection grade posts the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions and such
administrative instructions cannot impose any
restrictions not found in the Rules already
framed. We are unable to accept this argument
as correct. It is true that there is no specific
provision in the Rules laying down the
principle of promotion of junior or senior
grade officers to selection grade posts. But that
does not mean that till statutory rules are
framed in this behalf the Government cannot
issue administrative instructions regarding the
principle to be followed in promotions of the
officers concerned to selection grade posts. It
is true that Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative
instructions, but if the rules are silent on any
particular point Government can fill up the
gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules
already framed.” (emphasis supplied)
48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
45/53
(ALPAI) & Ors. vs. DG of Civil Aviation & Ors. reported as
(2011) 5 SCC 435 while dealing with the ambit and purport of
executive instructions had held as under:-
“17. CAR 2007 is neither a statute nor a subordinate
legislation. The provisions contained in Sections
4-A, 5 and 5-A of the 1934 Act and Rules 42-A
and 133-A of the 1937 Rules make it evident that
the same are merely executive instructions
which can be termed as “special directions”.
The executive instruction can supplement a
statute or cover areas to which the statute does
not extend, but it cannot run contrary to the
statutory provisions or whittle down their
effect. (Vide State of M.P. vs. G.S. Dall & Flour
Mills [1992 Supp (1) SCC 150].
18. In Khet Singh v. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC
380, this Court considered the scope and
binding force of the executive instructions issued
by the Narcotic Bureau, New Delhi and came to
the conclusion that such instructions are binding
and have to be followed by the investigating
officer, coming within the purview of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, even though such instructions do not
have the force of law. They are intended to guide
the officers and to see that a fair procedure is
adopted by them during the investigation of the
crime.
19. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC
1910] held as under: (AIR p. 1914, para 7)
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
46/53
“7. … It is true that the Government
cannot amend or supersede statutory
rules by administrative instructions, but
if the rules are silent on any particular
point Government can fill up the gaps
and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the
rules already framed.” (emphasis added)
20. Thus, an executive order is to be issued keeping
in view the rules and executive business, though
the executive order may not have the force of
law but it is issued to provide guidelines to all
concerned, who are bound by it.
21. In Union of India v. Amrik Singh (1994) 1 SCC
269, this Court examined the scope of executive
instructions issued by the Comptroller and
Auditor General for making the appointments
under the provisions of the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department (Administrative Officers,
Accounts Officers and Audit Officers)
Recruitment Rules, 1964, and came to the
conclusion that the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India had necessary competence to
issue departmental instructions on matters of
conditions of service of persons serving in the
Department, being the Head of the Department,
in spite of the statutory rules existing in this
regard. The Court came to the conclusion that
an enabling provision is there and in view
thereof, the Comptroller and Auditor General
had exercised his powers and issued the
instructions which are not inconsistent with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
47/53
statutory rules, the same are binding for the
reason that the provision in executive
instructions has been made with the required
competence by the Comptroller and Auditor
General.
22. Thus, it is evident from the above that executive
instructions which are issued for guidance and
to implement the scheme of the Act and do not
have the force of law, can be issued by the
competent authority and altered, replaced and
substituted at any time. The law merely
prohibits the issuance of a direction, which is
not in consonance with the Act or the statutory
rules applicable thereunder.”
49. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, reported as (2013) 16 SCC 147, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with service regulations governing a
departmental enquiry, has reiterated that an office order or office
memorandum cannot contravene statutory rules and held as
under:-
“59. The law laid down above has consistently been
followed and it is a settled proposition of law
that an authority cannot issue orders / office
memorandum / executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules. However,
instructions can be issued only to supplement
the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such
instructions should be subservient to the
statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
48/53
Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D.
Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622,
Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India,
(1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v.
Karnataka Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and
Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots'
Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5
SCC 435]”
50. From the afore-quoted decisions, it is
patently clear that an executive instructions or policy decision
cannot stand in contravention to statutory provisions. In the
present cases, the reliance placed by the respondent authorities
on the provisions of the tender documents, the Bihar Sand
Mining Policy, 2019 and the decisive reliance placed by the
respondents on Clause-10 under Part-III of the mining lease
deed executed between the parties, is of no consequence since
firstly, the provisions under Clause-18 of the Bihar Sand Mining
Policy, 2019 is completely in contravention of the Rule-50 of
the 2019 Rules. Similarly, Clause-10 under Part-III of the
mining lease deed is also in contravention of the Rule-50 of the
2019 Rules. Upon a bare perusal of aforesaid Clause-10 under
Part-III of the mining lease deed, it is patently clear that it
clearly makes no exception before forfeiting the security deposit
in case of surrender and provides that in case of surrender of
settlement, the entire security amount along with the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
49/53
amount paid by the settlee shall be forfeited and secondly, the
aforesaid Clause-10 under Part-III is not provisioned under the
Standard Form-B as appended to the statutory rules, which is in
violation of Rule-29-B(2) of the 2019 Rules.
51. Once the 2019 Rules prescribe the specific
form of lease under Form-B and deem the conditions in that
form, to be conditions to be imposed under the Rules
themselves, the lease deed ceases to be a purely private
instrument and assumes a statutory character to that extent. The
State Government could not impose terms and conditions
according to its own whims ignoring or disregarding the
statutory rules which are binding on it. Consequently, no
covenant in such a deed can override, contradict, or whittle
down the substantive Rule specifically occupying the filed. Any
additional clause, mutually agreed, is sustainable, only if it is
consistent with, and not destructive of, the statutory scheme.
52. This Court is conscious of the fact that
mining settlement is an arduous process for which the State
bears significant financial costs and premature surrendering of
the settled sand ghats causes further financial burden upon the
State. However, the forfeiture of the earnest money / security
deposit of the petitioners, de hors the 2019 Rules, and in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
50/53
absence of an express statutory rule akin to Clause-10 under
Part-III in the 2019 Rules, is not sustainable. Such covenants in
a mining lease deed cannot be a source of power for the
respondent authorities to forfeit the security deposits, more so,
when an express Rule under Rule-50(2) already occupies the
field. The power to forfeit the security deposit must flow from
the 2019 Rules.
53. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of
the considered view that the security amount deposited by the
petitioners could not have been forfeited by the respondents on
the strength of Clause-10 under Part-III of the executed mining
lease deed, much less on the provisions of the tender documents
or the Mining Policy of 2019. Such power to forfeit must be
sourced directly from the Rules of 2019 to satisfy the
constitutional mandate under Article 300-A. Accordingly the
action of forfeiture of the security deposit triggered by the
surrender by the petitioner is held to be unsustainable in absence
of any express enabling provision under the 2019 Rules akin to
Clause-10 under Part-III of the executed mining lease deed. The
surrender applications of the petitioner must be decided in light
of the existing rules occupying the filed, that is, Rule 50 of the
2019 Rules.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
51/53
54. So far as the grievance of the petitioner-
Awanish Construction in C.W.J.C. No.6991 of 2025 that the
petitioner was precluded from operating the sand ghat for
altogether 70 days, which according to the petitioner, is
attributable to the respondents and therefore, he is entitled to the
refund of royalty for the aforesaid period is concerned, this
Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to
approach the respondent authorities with a detailed
representation and supporting documents, which shall be
decided by the respondent authority in accordance with law,
particularly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd.
(supra) and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Chitra v. State of Kerala (supra).
55. In view of the foregoing discussions, this
Court deems it appropriate to pass the following directions:-
i. The impugned letters by which the surrender
of sand ghats by the petitioners have been
rejected and the security deposits/ earnest
money deposits have been forfeited, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents shall consider the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
52/53
the petitioners in accordance with Rule-50 of
the 2019 Rules and in cases where the
petitioner had given the requisite statutory
notice of six months’ and where no fraud or
violation of mining or environmental
conditions or any other irregularities have
been reported against the petitioners prior to
the surrender, the respondents shall accept
the surrenders of the respective sand ghats of
the petitioners in accordance with law and
forthwith refund the respective security
deposits / earnest money deposit of the
petitioners after deducting recoverables, if
any.
iii. The petitioner- M/s. Awanish Construction
is given liberty to approach the respondent
authorities, if so advised, for refund of the
proportional royalty amount for the period
during which he was precluded from the
mining in the sand ghat settled in its favour.
If such a representation is filed, the same
shall be considered and decided by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
53/53
respondent authorities within a period of
eight weeks from the date of filing of such a
representation by the petitioner and
thereafter the respondent authority shall pass
a reasoned and speaking order in accordance
with law after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. While deciding the
representation of the petitioner, the
respondent authority shall also consider the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvest (P)
Ltd. (supra).
56. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, these writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 19.01.2026
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…