THE STATE OF BIHAR vs PAWAN KUMAR

THE STATE OF BIHAR vs PAWAN KUMAR - Supreme Court Case 2022

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

I.A.   Nos.   154740­154741   of   2021,   153531­153532   of

2021, 165173 of 2021, 160138 of 2021, 160139 of 2021,

160142 of 2021 and 163177 of 2021

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3661­3662 OF 2020

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS       ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS        ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. All these I.As arise out of the directions issued by this

Court vide order dated 10th  November 2021 in Civil Appeal

Nos. 3661­3662 of 2020.

2. The   State   of   Bihar   had   approached   this   Court

challenging the order dated 14th October 2020, passed by the

National   Green   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New   Delhi

1

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Tribunal”)   in   O.A.   No.

40/2020/EZ   with   O.A.   No.   57/2020/EZ,   thereby   issuing

various directions.  This Court after taking into consideration

various   aspects,   including   the   necessity   to   curb   illegal

mining activities and the necessity to permit legal mining in

the interregnum till the other directions issued by this Court

are complied with, had issued the following directions dated

10th November 2021:

“14. We therefore find it appropriate to substitute

the directions issued by the Tribunal vide judgment

and   order   dated   14th October   2020,   with   the

following directions:­

(i) The exercise of preparation of DSR for

the purpose of mining in the State of Bihar

in   all   the   districts   shall   be   undertaken

afresh.  The draft DSRs shall be prepared by

the sub­divisional committees consisting of

the Sub­Divisional Magistrate, Officers from

Irrigation   Department,   State   Pollution

Control   Board   or   Committee,   Forest

Department,   Geological   or   mining   officer.

The same shall be prepared by undertaking

site   visits   and   also   by   using   modern

technology.   The   said   draft   DSRs   shall   be

prepared within a period of 6 weeks from

the date of this order.  After the draft DSRs

2

are prepared, the District Magistrate of the

concerned District shall forward the same

for   examination   and   evaluation   by   the

SEAC.  The same shall be examined by the

SEAC within a period of 6 weeks and its

report   shall   be   forwarded   to   the   SEIAA

within the aforesaid period of 6 weeks from

the receipt of it.   The SEIAA will thereafter

consider the grant of approval to such DSRs

within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt

thereon;

(ii) Needless to state that while preparing

DSRs and  the  appraisal  thereof  by  SEAC

and   SEIAA,   it   should   be   ensured   that   a

strict   adherence   to   the   procedure   and

parameters   laid   down   in   the   policy   of

January 2020 should be followed;

(iii) Until   further   orders,   we   permit   the

State   Government   to   carry   on   mining

activities   through   Bihar   State   Mining

Corporation   for   which   it   may   employ   the

services of the contractors. However, while

doing so, the State Government shall ensure

that all environmental concerns are taken

care   of   and   no   damage   is   caused   to   the

environment.”

The matter was directed to be listed after 20 weeks.

I.A. Nos. 154740­154741 of 2021 

3

3. The present I.As have been filed being aggrieved by the

cancellation of Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as the

“LoI”)   dated   21st  January   2020,   issued   in   favour   of   the

applicant. The applicant also apprehended that in view of the

order dated 10th  November 2021 passed by this Court with

respect to Banka District, the State Government may also

issue short Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as

the   “NIT”)   with  respect   to   Kishanganj   District.    After   the

present I.As were filed, NIT has also been issued in respect of

sand ghats in Kishanganj District on 2nd December 2021. 

4. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant was a

successful   bidder   in   the   auction   held   for   the   Kishanganj

District   and   as   such,   the   action   of   the   respondent   in

cancelling   the   LoI   and   issuing   fresh   NIT   for   Kishanganj

District is not sustainable in law.   It is submitted that the

offer  of  the  applicant   was  for a  much  higher  amount   as

compared to the offer received by the respondent­Bihar State

Mining   Corporation   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the

“Corporation”)   for   Kishanganj   District.     He   therefore

4

submitted   that   it   is   in   the   interest   of   justice   that   the

applicant may be permitted to carry out the mining activities

in the Kishanganj District.

I.A. Nos. 153531­153532 of 2021

5. In the present I.As, the applicant claimed that it was a

successful bidder for auction of sand ghats in respect of

Banka District for the period from 2015 to 2019.   It is the

case of the applicant that it had been granted extension after

the   year   2019   from   time   to   time   and   the   last   of   such

extensions was granted till 31st March 2022.  The applicant

apprehended   that   in   pursuance   to   the   order   dated   10th

November 2021 passed by this Court, NIT would also be

issued in respect of Banka District.  During the pendency of

these I.As, NIT in respect of sand ghats in Banka District has

been issued by the Corporation on 2nd December 2021.

6. We have heard Shri Narender Hooda, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in the said

application.  

7. Shri Hooda submitted that since the applicant was the

highest bidder in the auction conducted for the period from

5

2015 to 2019 and since thereafter, the applicant had been

granted extensions, he is entitled to carry out the mining

activities at least till 31st March 2022.  He further submitted

that the amount which the respondent­Corporation would

receive for the sand ghats in pursuance to the NIT dated 2nd

December 2021, is much less than the one the applicant has

offered and therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the

applicant be permitted to continue with the mining activities

at least till 31st March 2022.

I.A. No. 165173 of 2021

8. The   grievance   of   the   present   applicant   is   somewhat

similar to the grievance of the applicant in I.A. Nos. 154740­

154741 of 2021.   Here again, it is the contention of the

applicant that it was a successful bidder in respect of the

sand ghats in the Jamui District in the bids conducted in the

year 2019.  It is therefore submitted that the impugned NIT

dated   15th  November   2021   issued   by   the   Corporation

prejudicially affects the interest of the applicant.  

9. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel

in support of the said application.  Shri Bhushan submitted

6

that   the   applicant   was   a   successful   bidder   in   the   bids

conducted in the year 2019 and he is entitled to be appointed

as a contractor or in the alternative at least he be granted a

right to match the highest bidder along with the right of first

refusal.

I.A. Nos. 160138, 160139 and 160142 of 2021

10. The grievance of the present applicant is similar to the

grievance of the applicant in  I.A. Nos. 153531­153532 of

2021.  It is the case of the applicant that it was a successful

bidder for the period from 2015 to 2019 at Nawada District.

Thereafter, the applicant was granted extensions from time to

time and the last of such extensions was granted till 31st

March 2022.  

11. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on   behalf   of   the   applicant   submitted   that   as   such,   the

applicant would be entitled to carry out the mining activities

till 31st March 2022.

I.A. No. 163177 of 2021.

7

12. In the present application, it has been submitted on

behalf of the applicant that the mining activities which are

being carried out by the Corporation are without the grant of

Environmental   Clearance.     It   is   submitted   that   the   very

purpose for which the order was passed by the Tribunal and

modified by this Court, was to ensure that the environment

is   not   damaged   on   account   of   rampant   mining   activities

without   the   grant   of   Environmental   Clearance   by   the

Competent Authority.  It is therefore submitted that the NITs

dated 15th November 2021 and 2nd December 2021 are silent

about the environmental aspects and therefore, the action of

the   respondent­Corporation   in   issuing   NITs   amounts   to

contempt of this Court.

13. Shri   Atmaram   Nadkarni,   learned   Senior   Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant­State of Bihar submitted

that the NITs in question were issued for a limited period in

view of the order passed by this Court dated 10th November

2021.   He submitted that the rest of the directions as are

issued   by   this   Court   with   regard   to   preparation   of   draft

District Survey Report (hereinafter referred to as “DSR”) and

8

consideration   of   the   same   by   State   Expert   Appraisal

Committee   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “SEAC”)   and   State

Environment   Impact   Assessment   Authority   (hereinafter

referred   to   as   “SEIAA”)   are   under   process.     He   further

submitted that in view of the permission granted by this

Court vide order dated 10th November 2021, the Corporation

is employing the services of the contractor for the limited

period.  He submitted that after the directions issued by this

Court are complied with, a fresh process for allotment of

sand ghats in accordance with law would be initiated subject

to the orders of this Court.  He further submitted that while

permitting the mining activities through the services of the

contractor, the Corporation is ensuring that no damage is

caused to environment by such activities.

14. We   had   issued   the   directions   vide   order   dated   10th

November 2021 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the matter.   We had noticed that unless the detailed DSRs

are   prepared   by   the   Sub­Divisional   Committees   by

undertaking site visits and using the modern technology and

unless the same are examined by SEAC and SEIAA, it will

9

not   be   appropriate   to   carry   out   the   mining   activities.

However, we had also noticed that if there is a ban on mining

activities,   apart   from   it   leading   to   illegal   sand   mining,

criminalization   and   clashes   between   the   sand   mafias,   it

would also cause huge loss to the public exchequer.  We had

noticed that sand is also required for construction of public

infrastructural   projects   as   well   as   public   and   private

construction activities.

15. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter,

we   had   issued   directions   so   that   the   Sub­Divisional

Committees, the SEAC and SEIAA act within the stipulated

time periods.  We had granted 6 weeks’ time at each level and

had directed the matter to be kept after 20 weeks.  However

noticing, that during the said period, it was necessary to

permit the mining activities so as to prevent illegal mining

and also to prevent loss to the public exchequer, we had

permitted the Corporation to carry out the mining activities,

and   further   to   employ   the   services   of   the   contractor.

However,   while   doing   so,   we   had   directed   the   State

Government to ensure that all environmental concerns are

10

taken care of and no damage is caused to the environment. It

could   thus   be   seen   that   this   was   only   a   stop   gap

arrangement.

16. A   perusal   of   the   NITs   in   question,   issued   by   the

Corporation   would   reveal   that   the   Corporation   has

specifically referred to the order dated 10th November 2021,

passed   by   this   Court   and   has   also   specified   that   the

operation period of sand ghats will only be up to 31st March

2022, and subject to further orders passed by this Court in

the present proceedings.  

17. Insofar as the applicants in I.A. Nos. 153531­153532 of

2021 and I.A. Nos.160138, 160139 and 160142 of 2021, who

claim to have a vested right in view of the extensions granted

in   their   favour   are   concerned,   we   see   no   merit   in   these

applications.   Though   they   were   successful   in   the  bidding

process held in the year 2015, which was extended up to

2019 and thereafter, they were only continuing under the

extensions granted.  

18. Insofar   as   the   other   applicants   in   I.A.   Nos.154740­

154741 of 2021 and I.A. No.165173 of 2021 are concerned,

11

though they were successful bidders in the tender process

conducted in the year 2019, in view of the order passed by

the Tribunal dated 14th October 2020, which was modified by

this Court vide order dated 10th  November 2021, they also

cannot claim a vested right to do the mining activities.  

19. Taking   into   consideration   the   peculiar   facts   and

circumstances in which we had passed the order, we find

that entertaining any of such applications would result in

further   complications.     In   any   case   after   our   directions

issued on 10th  November 2021 are complied with, we will

take a final look of the matter in the last week of March,

2022.  The NITs issued by the Corporation for mining, cover

the period only up to 31st March 2022.  We are therefore not

inclined to entertain the aforesaid four I.As.

20. Insofar as the I.A. No. 163177 of 2021, filed by the

applicant alleging contempt of this Court’s order dated 10th

November 2021 is concerned, we have already directed the

State of Bihar to ensure that while carrying out the mining

activities, it shall ensure that all environmental concerns are

taken care of and no damage is caused to the environment.

12

We remind the State Government of the said directions and

direct it to ensure that the said directions are complied with

scrupulously.

21. In that view of the matter, I.A. Nos. 154740­154741 of

2021, 153531­153532 of 2021, 160138 of 2021, 160139 of

2021, 160142 of 2021 and 165173 of 2021 are rejected.  

22. I.A.   No.   163177   of   2021   is   disposed   of   in   terms   of

paragraph (20) of this order.

……....….......................J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…....….......................J.

      [B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 18, 2022.

13

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले