M/S Veereshwar Kripa Infrastructure vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Veereshwar Kripa Infrastructure, was allotted three sand ghats in Gaya district for a period of three months. The petitioner deposited the settlement amount, royalty, GST, and other statutory dues for all three ghats. However, due to a pending Supreme Court case, mining could not commence. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted permission to mine only two of the three allotted ghats (Rajan Sand Ghat and Dakhner Sand Ghat) because the environmental clearance for the third ghat, Amirganj Sand Ghat, had lapsed. The petitioner sought the immediate handover of Amirganj Sand Ghat and permission to execute mining work for three months from the date of possession. Alternatively, the petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid for the Amirganj Sand Ghat, as the period for which it was allotted had expired without the petitioner being able to utilize it.

Held

The Court held that the question was not about the settlement of the two available ghats or the environmental clearance of the third ghat, but rather about the return of the payment made for all three ghats. The Court found the petitioner's prayer for a refund of the amount paid for the third ghat to be just and proper, considering that the respondents themselves admitted that only two ghats were allotted for sand mining. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner paid for three ghats but could only utilize two due to the lapse of environmental clearance for the third, they are entitled to seek redressal for the amount paid for the unutilized ghat. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the General Manager, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, within four weeks with all relevant documents. The General Manager was directed to decide the matter within two months of the representation's presentation, potentially after giving a personal hearing. If a refund is deemed appropriate, it must be paid within four weeks thereafter, with statutory interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the Amirganj Sand Ghat, given that only two out of the three allotted ghats were made available for mining due to the lapse of environmental clearance, and the lease period has expired? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the lease deed was signed for three ghats and the amounts for all three were paid, they are entitled to a refund for the third ghat (Amirganj Sand Ghat) which was not allotted for mining due to the lapse of environmental clearance. They relied on the fact that the respondents themselves acknowledged only two ghats were allotted. Revenue/State's contention: The respondent submitted that the petitioner firm was granted permission for mining at Rajan Sand Ghat and Dakhner Sand Ghat. They stated that the environmental clearance for Amirganj Sand Ghat expired on April 6, 2022, and therefore, it was not allotted. They further contended that the petitioner had full knowledge of the expiry of the environmental clearance for Amirganj Sand Ghat and thus, only two ghats were rightly settled.