0
hc patna

Petitioner shall approach the authority responsible by filing a representation for redress of the grievance: Patna High Court

Petitioners right to approach the authority responsible by filing a representation for redress of the grievance and the authority concerned shall evaluate and dispose of it swiftly by a reasoned and spoken order, preferably within three months of its filing, together with a copy of this order is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKAS SHARMA in the case of Broad Son Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8594 of 2021)

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has requested the court to issue a writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to cancel all stockist licences in Form-K issued under Rule 39(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules2019 to persons other than sand ghats settlees in the district of Bhojpur. Furthermore, petitioner also prayed that the Hon’ble Court may rule and hold that only a mineral concession holder/settlee of sand ghat is authorised to sell sand under Rule 29 E of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules 2019, and that only a mineral concession holder/settlee can obtain a stockist licence in Form K under Rule 39(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. The petitioner sought that Hon’ble Court may rule and hold that Rule 39 (1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 is subject to Rule-29E of the same, and that a stockist licence in Form K can only be obtained by a settlee, and that the respondents’ action in issuing stockist licences in Form K to persons other than settlees is in violation of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2019.

Under instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation that the petitioner will be filing within four weeks for redressal of the grievance(s), the petitioner will be satisfied, whereas learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of it expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.

Petition was disposed off with terms that include upholding petitioners right to approach the authority responsible by filing a representation for redress of the grievance and the authority concerned shall evaluate and dispose of it swiftly by a reasoned and spoken order, preferably within three months of its filing, together with a copy of this order. Undoubtedly, when contemplating such representation, natural justice principles must be followed, and the parties must be given a fair hearing. Similarly, the petitioner holds the right to pursue alternative remedies that are otherwise available under the law, and the court hopes that if and when the petitioner pursues such remedies before the appropriate forum, the matter will be resolved in accordance with the law and in a timely manner.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat