Bimal Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bimal Kumar, was issued a work order for the settlement of Patna 01-A Sand ghat. Subsequently, the Collector, Patna, issued an order on 11.12.2024 revoking the work order, forfeiting the petitioner's security deposit of Rs. 92,81,500/-, and debarring him from future tenders for two years. This action was based on the ground that the petitioner had not commenced operations. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Mines Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 04.09.2025. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging both the Collector's order and the Mines Commissioner's appellate order. The petitioner contended that the sand ghat had become submerged due to unforeseen events, making performance impossible.
Held
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 11.12.2024 (issued by the Collector, Patna) and 04.09.2025 (issued by the Mines Commissioner). The Court remanded the matter back to the Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) for a fresh consideration. This reconsideration is to be done after taking into account the inspection report dated 27.05.2026. The Court directed the Commissioner to take necessary steps for the refund of the security deposit expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. The Court also noted that if the petitioner makes a representation for interest payment, the Commissioner shall deal with it in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Collector, Patna, revoking the petitioner's work order, forfeiting his security deposit, and debarring him from future tenders, is valid under Rule 28 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 and clause 19(iii) of the tender document, on the ground of non-commencement of operations? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the contract had become frustrated due to unforeseen events, specifically the submersion of the sand ghat with the River Ganga, rendering performance impossible and fundamentally different from the original intent. He sought the refund of his security deposit and other deposited amounts. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents' primary contention, as reflected in the Collector's order, was that the petitioner failed to commence operations of the sand ghat, justifying the revocation and forfeiture under the relevant rules and tender conditions. No specific arguments from the respondents were detailed in the judgment regarding the frustration of contract.
Sections Cited
Rule 67 (2), Rule 28
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 22-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 04.09.2025 contained in memo no. 4987 dated 08.09.2025 issued by the Respondent Mines Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 10/2025 (Annexure P16) whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the 2/5 petitioner under Rule 67 (2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 against memo no. 3581 dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure 12) issued by Respondent Collector Patna revoking work order issued to petitioner and forfeiting the security deposit furnished by the petitioner, has been dismissed on wholly erroneous grounds and without considering the fact and circumstance of the case. (ii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing memo no. 3581 dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure 12) issued by Respondent Collector Patna whereby work order issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 64 dated 08.01.2024 has been revoked; the security amount of Rs. 92,81,500/-deposited by the petitioner for settlement of Patna 01-A Sand ghat has been forfeited and the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tender for two years, under Rule 28 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Transportation and Storage) Rules 2019 and clause no. 19 (iii) of the tender document on the ground that the petitioner had not commenced operation of the sand ghat. (iii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the security deposit of 92,81,500/- and the other amounts (First installment of royalty, DMF, TCS, GST, stamp duty and registration charges, 3/5 post-dated cheques for second and third installment of royalty) deposited by the petitioner for settlement of Patna 01-A Sand ghat since the contract between the petitioner and the Department of Mines and Geology stands frustrated due to unforeseen events which have occurred after formation of the contract, rendering its performance impossible and fundamentally different from what the parties originally intended. (iv) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the petitioner cannot be compelled to commence mining activity when the sand ghat has been submerged with the main stream of River Ganga that too for no fault on the part of the petitioner.”
This Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 has passed the following the order:
“17. In that background, this Court directs the respondents to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the District Mining Officer, Patna by 18.05.2026, whereafter, after noticing the parties, the joint inspection shall take place on 25.05.2026 and in case, it rains on the said date, the alternate dates can be 26.05.2026 or 27.05.2026 and/or date fixed by the respondents best before 31.05.2026. 18. The petitioner while submitting the application along with the order and the 4/5 demand draft together with the phone number, Whatsapp number and e-mail details so that he can be immediately informed about the date of inspection.
The inspection report must be signed by all the Officers as also the petitioner. In case any of the party defaults, the same be recorded. It is expected that this shall be videographed so that those present cannot deny their presence on the date of inspection.
It is made clear that if the report shows that the petitioner was at fault and the Sand Ghat is available, the amount deposited shall be forfeited.
A copy of the report shall be handed to the petitioner on the date of inspection duly signed and the parties are at liberty to file affidavits before the next date of hearing.”
A copy of the report submitted by the inspection team is filed as Annexure- P/17 dated 27.05.2026, having regard to the said fact the impugned orders dated 11.12.2024 and 04.09.2025 are both set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Secretary-cum- Mines Commissioner i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein to consider the case of the petitioner afresh duly taking into consideration the inspection report dated 27.05.2026 and take necessary steps for refund of the security deposit as 5/5 expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today. In case the petitioner makes any representation to the Commissioner for payment of the interest, the same shall be dealt by the Commissioner in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Gauravkr/- (A. Abhishek Reddy , J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.