Patna High Court
Pragati Indian Road Lines vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19124 of 2025
======================================================
Pragati Indian Road Lines a proprietorship firm, through its authorized
signatory, Pradip Kumar Singh aged about 54 years (male), son of
Siddheshwar Singh, resident of Jai Ambey Petrol Pump, Patewa, P.S. Patewa,
District Mahasamund, Chhatisgarh-493551.
... ... 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 Collector cum District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.
5. The District Mining Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shanker Tiwary, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Vrat, A.C. to G.P.-10
For the Mines Deptt. : 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 : 15-07-2026
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioner, which is a
proprietorship firm and the settlee of Rohtas Son Sand
Ghat/Block No.3A in the district of Rohtas under a registered
settlement deed dated 26.11.2024 executed with the Mines and
Geology Department, Government of Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
2/24
2. Being the highest bidder in the e-auction
held on 27.12.2023 and having paid the entire settlement
amount for the first settlement year in advance, the petitioner
claims refund on account of restrictions said to have been
imposed by the respondent authorities upon its mining and sale
operations.
3. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents to refund
the proportionate royalty amount for
2,37,734.02 MT sand which the petitioner
could not excavate and sell on account of
restriction imposed on mining activity at
Rohtas Sand Block 3A in the district of
Rohtas, by the Respondent or to
alternatively extend the settlement period
by 167 days.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and
hold that the action of the Respondent
authorities in not granting proportionate
remission in royalty for 2,37,734.02 MT
sand which the petitioner could not
excavate and sell on account of
restriction imposed on mining activity by
the Respondents, is completely illegal,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
3/24
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."
4. The brief facts of the case are that in the year
2023, the respondents floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for
settlement of sand ghats in the district of Rohtas for a period of
five years. The petitioner participated in the e-auction held on
27.12.2023
in respect of Sand Ghat/Block No.3A of the river
Son and emerged as the highest bidder at Rs.26,83,80,000/-
against the reserve price of Rs.9,58,50,000/-, with the earnest
money deposit being Rs.2,39,62,500/-. Upon payment of the
differential security deposit of Rs. 4,31,32,500/- on 06.01.2024,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
4/24
the Collector, Rohtas issued the in-principle approval/letter of
intent (LOI) vide letter no.52 dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-1).
The letter of intent, inter alia, stipulated the payment schedule,
that is, the first installment of 50% of the annual royalty amount
before execution of the agreement, the second installment of
25% within three months and the third installment of 25%
within six months of the execution of the lease/agreement, and
required the petitioner to obtain all statutory clearances,
including the mining plan, environmental clearance and the
consents of the State Pollution Control Board.
5. The State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, Bihar granted environmental clearance to the
petitioner on 10.08.2024. Clause (ii) of the environmental
clearance certificate granted in favour of the petitioner stipulates
that sand mining from the river shall not be done in the rainy
season, i.e., from mid-June to mid-October, of each calendar
year. Thereafter, upon grant of the consents by the Bihar State
Pollution Control Board, the petitioner executed the settlement
agreement with the Mining Department on 26.11.2024. The first
settlement year thus ran from 26.11.2024 to 25.11.2025. The
quantity capping allotted to the petitioner for the first settlement
year, as reflected in the online portal of the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
5/24
Department, was 10,23,163.30 MT of sand.
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the imposition
of various restrictions, not attributable to it, over a period of
time during the currency of lease tenure and thereby, it is the
case of the petitioner that such restrictions restricting its access
and utilization of the sand ghat is arbitrary and cannot result in
prejudicial outcome to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that the present case is on
account of several factors, due to which, the petitioner was
precluded from operating the sand ghat settled in its favour for
the reasons not attributable to him and as such, no adverse civil
consequences could be attached to it. The learned counsel has
further submitted that only because the petitioner had delayed
the third installment of the payment for which, the only
consequence under the Rules was to impose interest on delayed
payment, which the petitioner has already paid, however, the
respondents further disabled the e-challan generation, which is
not a consequence stipulated under the Rules. Therefore, it is the
submission of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have
exceeded their jurisdiction causing delay and effectively
precluding the petitioner from operating its sand ghat and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
6/24
consequently, causing losses to be suffered by the petitioner.
8. It is next submitted that on account of
Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) the entry of sand
laden trucks was prohibited by the district administration and
therefore, the petitioner was again precluded from operating the
sand ghats allotted to it. It is further submitted that due to
frequent V.I.P. movements, the petitioner was on and off
prevented from excavating the sand from the sand ghats allotted
to it. Therefore, it is the categorical submission that the
aggregate preclusion of 167 days was occasioned entirely by the
acts of the respondent authorities and not attributable to the
petitioner and therefore, no losses should be saddled upon the
petitioner.
9. It is the categorical submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made
representations dated 13.11.2025 and 19.11.2025 before the
respondent authorities but the said representation remained
unanswered.
10. It is emphasized by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the royalty can be levied on the amount of sand
excavated or removed. In the present case, since the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
7/24
was precluded / prevented from excavating the sand ghats
allotted to it, for the reasons not attributable to the petitioner and
beyond its control, therefore, the petitioner deserves the refund
of the proportional royalty. It is submitted that the action of the
respondent authorities in realizing the total royalty despite the
fact that the petitioner could not excavate one fourth of the total
capping limit would amount to unjust enrichment and is
therefore, not sustainable.
11. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. vs. State
of Haryana, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 381, wherein it has been
held that a mining contractor who could not carry out mining
operations by reason of the acts of omission and commission on
the part of the authorities cannot be held bound to pay the
contract amount merely because it had voluntarily entered into
the contract. Reliance has also been placed on the interim order
dated 03.05.2018 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6790 of
2018 (M/s. Broad Son Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Bihar) and analogous cases, whereby the respondent authorities
were restrained from charging royalty or penalty for the period
during which the petitioners therein were precluded from
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
8/24
conducting mining, as also the consequential order dated
17.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6727 of 2018 and analogous
cases, deprecating a demand raised in the teeth of the earlier
order.
12. Learned counsel has further relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chitra vs. State of
Kerala, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 685, on the entitlement of a
licensee to remission of licence fee where it is precluded from
transacting business for reasons extraneous to it.
13. Heavy reliance has been placed on two
recent decisions of this Court. In Batsha Khatoon & Ors. vs.
State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No.4167 of 2025, decided on
16.04.2026, wherein this Court directed refund, on pro-rata
basis, of the bid amount for the period during which the sand
ghat settlee remained precluded from mining on the strength of
a cancellation order subsequently set aside, together with
compensatory simple interest at 6% per annum, holding that the
State cannot unjustly enrich itself by saddling a settlee with
royalty for a period of legal disability not attributable to it. In
M/s Awanish Construction vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C.
No.6991 of 2025), decided together with analogous cases in
Lalan Kumar vs. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No.6393 of 2025)
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
9/24
which raised a grievance substantially identical to the present
one with regard to restriction on generation of e-challans,
delayed activation of the secondary loading area and the SEIAA
restriction beyond the NIT, this Court granted liberty to the
settlee to seek refund of proportionate royalty by way of a
representation to be decided in the light of Jai Durga Finvest
(supra) and Chitra (supra).
14. Per contra, learned Special P.P. appearing
for the Mines Department, supported by learned counsel for the
State, has raised a threshold objection of suppression of material
facts. It is submitted that the petitioner deliberately concealed
from this Court its surrender application dated 22.05.2025, the
letter of the Department dated 23.08.2025 seeking confirmation,
and its own letter dated 01.09.2025. It is therefore, the
submission that a settlee cannot, approbate and reprobate, and
the concealment disentitles the petitioner to any discretionary
relief under Article 226.
15. On maintainability, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the answering respondent that the reliefs claimed are
purely monetary and contractual, resting on seriously disputed
questions of fact, and are therefore not amenable to writ
jurisdiction. A bidder who has participated in the auction and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
10/24
accepted the benefit of the settlement cannot thereafter
challenge or seek to escape the tender conditions merely
because they have proved onerous. It is further submitted on the
strength of a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in
L.P.A. No.379 of 2019, titled as Aman Sethi vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. that extension of the tenure of a settlement is a matter
strictly of the terms and conditions of the contract, alterable, if
at all, only by the State Government, and is not amenable to
judicial review, the more so when the settlement year in
question has expired.
16. It is further submitted that the suspension of
e-challans of the petitioner was the direct and agreed
consequence of the own admitted failure of the petitioner in not
paying the third installment by 25.05.2025 despite the reminder
dated 23.05.2025, the suspension having been effected only on
18.07.2025 strictly in terms of Clause 24(ii) of the tender
document and Clause 3(ii) of Part-V of the agreement, which
further required the petitioner to furnish post-dated cheques for
the second and third installments, and reactivation having been
set in motion immediately upon full payment. It is further
emphasized by learned counsel for the answering respondents
that the said clauses expressly stipulate that no claim of
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
11/24
compensation shall be entertained for such period, and the levy
of interest under Rule 29(B)(4) does not override the distinct
contractual consequence of suspension.
17. It is next submitted that the allegation of
denial of credentials for the secondary loading area is false since
the e-challans were operational from 18.06.2025. Further,
Clause 42(xiii) of the tender document bars any claim of
compensation on account of restrictions imposed under the
environmental clearance. Moreover, it is submitted that during
the monsoon only river mining stood suspended while sale from
the secondary loading point continued, the petitioner having
issued 4,705 e-challans in that period. Furthermore, the
restrictions on the 13 days in question were temporary, partial,
confined to a few hours and to particular areas, occasioned by
VIP movement, festivals such as Durga Puja, Diwali and
Chhath, and election polling and counting days, in the interest
of law and order, and the petitioner itself generated 195 e-
challans on those days.
18. It is next submitted that the restriction during
the Maha Kumbh was a temporary and partial traffic regulation
in public interest which prohibited neither mining nor sale, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
12/24
petitioner having issued 6,126 e-challans in those 41 days and
the allegation that mining was not permitted from 16.10.2025 to
25.11.2025 is false.
19. On the legal plane, it is submitted that in
terms of Rule 51(7) of the Rules, 2019, the auction/settlement
amount is itself treated as royalty and is payable in advance as a
condition of the settlement, de-linked from the quantity of
mineral actually excavated or removed. Rule 51(4) neither
overrides Rule 51(7) nor converts the lump-sum bid, freely
offered at a competitive e-auction which closed far above the
reserve price, into a returnable metered charge. It is further
submitted that the letter of intent itself stipulated that the annual
settlement amount would not be reduced even if the mineable
quantity were reduced by the environmental clearance or the
consents. It is therefore, the categorical submission of the
answering respondent that mere non-utilisation of the capping
creates no vested right of refund, remission or extension.
20. I have considered the rival submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on
record.
21. Shorn of details, the facts relevant for
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
13/24
adjudication lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the
settlee of Rohtas Son Sand Block No.3A under a five-year lease
settlement. The petitioner paid the entire first year settlement
amount, though the third installment was paid belatedly along
with its interest at the rate of 24% per annum under Rule 29(B)
(4) of the Rules, 2019. As against the first year capping of
10,23,163.30 MT, the petitioner could sell only 7,85,429.28 MT,
leaving 2,37,734.02 MT un-utilised. There was, at no point of
time, any cancellation or suspension of the settlement itself.
22. It is a settled position of law that the
settlement amount or royalty presupposes that the concession
holder had the effective right and opportunity to work the
concession and where the settlee is precluded from working it
by reasons attributable to the State or wholly extraneous to the
settlee, the State cannot retain the consideration referable to the
period or quantity of preclusion, since that would amount to
unjust enrichment.
23. It is settled position of law that the petitioner
can not be subjected to adverse civil or financial consequences
where the inability to exercise a statutory or contractual right is
occasioned by the action or omission of the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
14/24
authorities themselves. Consequently, where the non-utilisation
of a licence is not attributable to the petitioner, the imposition of
the full financial burden would be arbitrary and inequitable, and
the petitioner would be entitled to a proportionate remission.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
reported as (2004) 3 SCC 381 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 40 has
held as under:-
“10. The question, thus, which was required to
be posed and answered was as to whether
clause 18-A of the agreement would remain
enforceable despite the fact that the
appellant allegedly could not extract any
sand by reasons of omission and
commission on the part of the respondents
concerned. The appellant herein has raised
a plea that the contract became impossible
to be performed as the landowners of the
area in question did not receive
compensation and despite request, the third
respondent did not enforce clause 27 of the
agreement.
11. It is not in dispute that the grant of mining
lease in favour of the appellant herein for
the extraction of mineral sand by the
respondents is governed by the provisions
of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1964. In terms of Rule 33 the bidder
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
15/24is required to execute a deed in Form ‘L’.
Clause 27 of the agreement in Form ‘L’
obligates the respondents to comply with
the request made in terms thereof. The
Appellate Authority had not considered this
aspect of the matter. The High Court also
did not apply its mind in this behalf. The
first question that arises is whether the
respondents complied with their statutory
obligations when the request was made by
the appellant. If not, the second question
would be the effect of non-compliance with
the statutory obligation of the respondents
which formed part of the contract insofar
as they did not comply with the appellant’s
request as aforementioned which had a
direct bearing on the right of the appellant
to raise sand. The High Court, as noticed
hereinbefore, has merely proceeded on the
basis that the appellant had entered into
the contract with his eyes wide open; but,
the same would not, in our opinion, mean
that they were bound to pay the contract
amount, get its security amount forfeited,
as also pay interest at the rate of 24 per
cent, although it could not, by reason of
acts of omission and commission on the
part of the respondents, carry out the
mining operation as per the terms of the
agreement.
12. Whether in such a situation the doctrine of
frustration will be invoked or not should
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
16/24have been considered by the High Court.
[See M.D., Army Welfare Housing
Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd.
[(2003) 8 Scale 424 (2)]”
25. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chitra v. State of Kerala, reported as (2016) 1 SCC
685 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 745 has held as under:-
“5. The facts are neither disputed nor are they
convoluted. The appellant had submitted
an application on 16-3-1990 for the grant
of an FL 3 licence in respect of her Hotel
Chanakya at Trivandrum, which had been
granted. However, it transpired that a third
party filed a suit in which the Munsif
Court, Trivandrum granted an interim
injunction restraining the Excise
Commissioner from issuing the said
licence to the appellant for user at her said
hotel. This suit, along with another suit
similar to it, was eventually dismissed on
29-9-1993. In an ensuing appeal, the
District Judge granted an ad interim
injunction on 15-4-1994, which came to be
vacated on 3-6-1994. On 23-11-1994, the
respondent rejected the appellant’s
application for the FL 3 licence due to an
amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules
which had resulted in private parties being
ineligible for FL 3 licences. Consequently,
the appellant filed OP No. 18145 of 1994,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
17/24which was allowed by the Single Judge.
Acting in accordance with the Single
Judge’s directions, the Excise
Commissioner granted the licence and
raised a demand of only the proportionate
licence fee which was duly deposited; but
the matter was brought before the Division
Bench in the subject appeal. As already
mentioned, it seems most likely that the
attention of the Division Bench which
passed the impugned judgment was not
brought to bear on the already existing
binding decisions in R. Vijayakumar [1994
Supp (2) SCC 47] as well as Jayadevan v.
Board of Revenue [1998 SCC OnLine Ker
209] wherein the Division Bench of the
High Court of Kerala has held that the
licensee is required to pay only the
proportionate licence fee if the delay in
granting the licence, or utilising it, as the
case may be, are for reasons not
attributable to the said licensee.
6. We are in agreement with the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant that the
legal principle to the effect that no person
can be prejudiced because of an act of a
court is apposite and relevant in the
present case. We say this keeping in
perspective the position that although the
appellant had applied for the FL 3 licence
which would ordinarily run the course of
one financial year, due to interim orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
18/24passed by the courts, the appellant could
only utilise it for a fraction of that period.
We hasten to clarify that the appellant’s
application was not made in the duration
of that year and was thus initially not for a
fraction of the financial year. This Court
has already held in R. Vijayakumar [1994
Supp (2) SCC 47], in the circumstances
prevailing in that case, that the
Department could not interfere with the
utilisation of the FL 3 licence, provided
that the licensee complied with all other
conditions as well as “payment of annual
rental proportionately”. It is, therefore,
clear that Rule 14 would not impede or
inhibit the charging of annual
proportionate fee so long as no failure is
placed on the licensee or it is blameworthy
itself. We must be quick to clarify that in
the event that a party applies for a period
which is obviously not effective for the
entire financial year, such as applying for
a licence midway that financial year, the
full fee for that year may be claimable or
chargeable and, therefore, would have to
be paid. In other words, had the appellant
applied for the licence even with the
knowledge that because of external factors
such as a pre-existing injunction order,
etc., she would not have been able to
exploit it for the entire year, she may not
have been liable to pay the licence fee for
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
19/24the entire year. This is not the factual
matrix which obtains in the case at hand;
the licence could only be granted for the
period from 21-12-1999 to 31-3-2000 i.e.
till the close of that financial year, owing
to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the
ken and control of the parties before us.
We have already made a mention of the
Division Bench judgment delivered in
Jayadevan [1998 SCC OnLine Ker 209]
which in turn was referred to in another
Division Bench judgment in Rajagopalan
Nair v. Commr. of Excise [1989 SCC
OnLine Ker 387], wherein the Division
Bench directed that the licensee was
entitled to remission of payment of kisht
because of being disabled to conduct its
business on account of the interim orders
passed by the Court. We affirm the
conclusions arrived at in these decisions.
We hold that a party is entitled to seek a
remission in the payment of licence fee if
it is precluded from transacting business
on the strength of that licence because of
factors and reasons extraneous to it
and/or if it is granted the licence on the
direction of a court for only a portion of
the financial year.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
respondent State shall, within six weeks
from today, refund to the appellant the
balance amount of Rs.9,41,257 together
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
20/24with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. with effect
from 11-8-2005. Failure to do so shall
render the respondent State liable to
refund the aforementioned sum of Rs
9,41,257/- together with interest @ 12%
p.a. calculated from 11-8-2005 till the date
of payment and also additionally liable for
payment of costs quantified at R.s 15,000
(Rupees fifteen thousand only).
Civil Appeal No. 4900 of 2006
8. The facts that arise in this appeal are
somewhat complex in comparison to
Chitra’s foregoing appeal. The appellant
had been granted an FL 3 licence for its
Hotel Hackoba at Ernakulam for the
period ending on 31-3-2001. Due to a
dispute with its landlord it had to vacate
its premises; and on locating to another, it
applied for the renewal of the licence on
26-2-2002. This was obviously for the
immediately succeeding year 1-4-2001 to
31-3-2002. The Excise Commissioner
rejected the application for renewal on
4-9-2002 on the ground that the licence
had become defunct; a decision which was
upheld by the State Government. In these
circumstances, the appellant successfully
approached the High Court of Kerala
which issued a direction to the State
Government to issue the licence within two
weeks. The Single Judge simultaneously
directed the appellant to pay the licence
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
21/24fee for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-
2003 by his judgment dated 27-1-2003.
The appellant preferred an appeal, and on
the first day of its hearing, the Division
Bench passed an ad interim order
directing the appellant to pay Rs 15 lakhs.
Shortly after making this payment, on
25-3-2003, the licence was renewed. The
Division Bench of the High Court of
Kerala noted Rule 14 of the Foreign
Liquor Rules as well as the fact that it had
not been challenged. The Division Bench
accepted the argument of the appellant
that for the reason that it could not utilise
the licence for the year 2001-2002 as its
application had been disallowed it was not
liable to pay any fee; viz. during this
period it was prevented by extraneous
elements and factors from utilising the
licence. However, the Division Bench held
that since the licence was renewed in
March 2003, even though the appellant
could conduct its business for less than a
fortnight in that licence year, nevertheless
the appellant was liable to pay the full fee
for the year 2002-2003. It is these
circumstances which have constrained the
appellant to file the present appeal before
us.
9. In order to eradicate any possibility of
misunderstanding our present judgment,
we hasten to clarify that had the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
22/24appellant’s application for renewal of the
FL 3 licence found approval instead of
rejection on 4-9-2002, the appellant would
have been liable to pay the entire fee for
the year 2001-2002. This is so for the
simple reason that there was no third-party
interference or intervention which led to
the non-utilisation of that licence for the
previous portion of that year; it may be
reiterated that the appellant had to locate
fresh premises. However, after 4-9-2002,
the appellant cannot be held responsible in
any way for the non-utilisation of the
licence up to the date it was eventually
renewed i.e. 25-3-2003.
10. On the predication of the legal analysis and
discussion in Civil Appeal No.2246 of
2006 (supra), we are of the opinion that
the appellant is only liable to pay the
proportionate licence fee for the period in
which it could avail of the licence, that is,
25-3-2003 to 31-3-2003. It would be fair
to cogitate upon whether the appellant
should have declined the licence for
virtually a week in that year, and since it
failed to exercise that option, whether it
should be burdened with the fee for the full
year. It seems to us that any person placed
in the position of the appellant would not
be in a position to decline to accept the
renewal of the licence even though it was
for less than a fortnight, since that would
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
23/24have led to the licence being rendered
defunct; which may have then led to
consequence of disentitlement for grant or
renewal of the FL 3 licence in the future.”
26. At this juncture, this Court has noted that in
C.W.J.C No.6991 of 2025, titled as ‘M/s Awanish Construction
vs State of Bihar & Ors‘ which was decided together with the
analogous cases, this Court had directed the respondent
authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners
therein and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in
light of the decision of 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 (supra).
27. It is settled position of law that the petitioner
can not be subjected to adverse civil consequence where the
inability to exercise a statutory or contractual right is occasioned
by the action or omission of the respondent authorities
themselves. Consequently, where the non-utilisation of a licence
is not attributable to the petitioner, the imposition of the full
financial burden would be arbitrary and inequitable, and the
petitioner should be entitled to proportionate remission.
28. In these circumstances, the petitioner is
directed to approach the respondent authorities for appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.19124 of 2025 dt.15-07-2026
24/24
calculation of the refund of the proportional royalty amount for
the period during which he was precluded from the mining in
the sand ghat settled in his favour, for reasons not attributable to
him.
29. If such a representation is filed, the same
shall be considered and decided by the 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 aforesaid 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).
30. This Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
31. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 18.03.2026 Uploading Date 20.07.2026 Transmission Date
