THE STATE OF BIHAR vs. PAWAN KUMAR

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 th Court vide order dated 10   November 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3661­3662 of 2020. The   State   of   Bihar   had   approached   this   Court 2. th challenging the order dated 14  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 th 10  November 2021:

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 st “LoI”)   dated   21   January   2020,   issued   in   favour   of   the applicant. The applicant also apprehended that in view of the th order dated 10   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 nd sand ghats in Kishanganj District on 2  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 st extensions was granted till 31  March 2022.  The applicant th apprehended   that   in   pursuance   to   the   order   dated   10 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 nd been issued by the Corporation on 2  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 st activities at least till 31  March 2022.  He further submitted that the  amount which the  respondent­Corporation would nd receive for the sand ghats in pursuance to the NIT dated 2 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 st at least till 31  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 th dated   15   November   2021   issued   by   the   Corporation prejudicially affects the interest of the applicant.   We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel 9. 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 The grievance of the present applicant is similar to the 10. 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 st time and the last of such extensions was granted till 31 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 st till 31  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 th nd dated 15  November 2021 and 2  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 th view of the order passed by this Court dated 10  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 th Court vide order dated 10  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. th 14. We   had   issued   the   directions   vide   order   dated   10 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. A   perusal   of   the   NITs   in   question,   issued   by   the 16. Corporation   would   reveal   that   the   Corporation   has th specifically referred to the order dated 10  November 2021, passed   by   this   Court   and   has   also   specified   that   the st operation period of sand ghats will only be up to 31  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 th the Tribunal dated 14  October 2020, which was modified by th this Court vide order dated 10   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 th issued on 10   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 st the period only up to 31  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 th applicant alleging contempt of this Court’s order dated 10 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. In that view of the matter, I.A. Nos. 154740­154741 of 21. 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