Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a writ petition filed by a sand supplier before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, against the State of Maharashtra and its revenue officials, seeking refund of auction amounts or extension of contract for a sand excavation sand spot. The petitioner had participated in an e-auction for excavation of sand at Village Wangi Khurd, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar for financial year 2016-17. The tender was governed by a Government Resolution dated 12 March 2013 of the Revenue Department, which prescribed conventional methods for sand excavation and expressly prohibited the use of suction pumps except in exceptional circumstances with government permission. The petitioner was the highest bidder for 1031 brass of sand and deposited one-fourth of the bid amount on 27 February 2017. When he attempted to deposit the remaining three-fourths on 2 March 2017, the authorities refused, leading to Writ Petition No. 3081 of 2017, which was allowed on 30 March 2017. Possession of the sand spot was handed over to the petitioner on 6 April 2017. Meanwhile, a third party, M/s. K.B.Mobile, attempted to intervene and later filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7565 of 2017, in which the Supreme Court ordered status quo on 11 April 2017. The National Green Tribunal also passed an order on 19 April 2017 prohibiting the use of suction pumps for sand excavation in Maharashtra. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 8 August 2017. The petitioner was informed on 3 May 2017 that he was restrained from excavating sand due to the Supreme Court's status quo order. The State of Maharashtra later granted a proportionate refund of Rs.25,53,247 for the period from 11 April 2017 to 8 August 2017 when excavation was stayed, along with refund of tax amount of Rs.6,19,668, by order dated 20 March 2019. The petitioner contended that he could not excavate sand during the periods before the status quo (6 April to 10 April 2017) and after the status quo was lifted (9 August to 30 September 2017) because of water in the river bed and because he was never granted permission to use a suction pump. He made a representation to the Revenue Minister on 11 September 2017, declaring that without suction pump permission he could not excavate sand till the end of the contract period, and sought refund of the entire amount or extension of contract. The respondents argued that the petitioner was fully aware of the prohibition on suction pumps under clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Government Resolution, that he had never attempted to use conventional methods such as Hath Pati or Dubi, and that his own representation showed he had decided not to excavate unless allowed to use a suction pump. The Additional Collector had also conveyed that conventional methods should ordinarily be used and suction pump permitted only in rare natural circumstances. The High Court identified the key issue as whether the petitioner was prevented by any act of the government or by natural circumstances from excavating sand during the two disputed periods. The Court noted that possession was handed over on 6 April 2017, not 31 March 2017, and that the petitioner had applied for suction pump permission on the very same day he received possession, without making any effort to excavate by permissible methods. He never pleaded that he engaged even a single labourer for conventional excavation. The Court found that the petitioner had participated in the auction with full knowledge of the tender conditions and the onset of monsoon, and that his insistence on using a suction pump was obstinate and unjustified. The Court held that the petitioner's refusal to use conventional methods disentitled him to any further refund or extension of contract. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the rule discharged, leaving the petitioner only with the already granted proportionate refund for the judicial stay period.
Headnote
A) Tender and Auction Conditions - Prohibition on Suction Pump and Prescribed Conventional Methods - Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of Government Resolution dated 12.03.2013 (Revenue Department) - The petitioner, as highest bidder for a sand spot, was aware that only conventional methods such as Hath Pati and Dubi were permitted and that suction pump use was expressly prohibited; the National Green Tribunal also prohibited suction pump use. The petitioner applied for suction pump permission on the very day possession was handed over and made no attempt to excavate by permissible methods. Held that his insistence on using a suction pump and refusal to use conventional methods disentitled him to any refund for the periods he failed to excavate (Paras 12-20). B) Writ Remedies - Mandamus for Refund/Extension of Contract - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for return of the remaining auction amount and tax with interest or extension of contract, claiming inability to excavate due to water levels and lack of suction pump permission. The High Court held that no legal right to refund or extension existed because the petitioner had not been prevented by any act of the State or natural circumstances from excavating; his failure was due to his own obstinate refusal to use conventional methods. The writ petition was dismissed and rule discharged, with no further refund beyond the already granted proportionate compensation for the judicial stay period (Paras 15-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was prevented by the act of the Government or by natural circumstances from excavating sand during the periods 06.04.2017 to 10.04.2017 and 09.08.2017 to 30.09.2017, and whether such prevention entitled him to refund of the remaining auction amount or extension of contract. Whether the petitioner could claim refund/extension based on refusal of permission to use suction pump despite prohibition under Government Resolution dated 12.03.2013.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Rule was discharged. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to refund of auction amount for the periods 31.03.2017 to 10.04.2017 and 09.08.2017 to 30.09.2017 with interest, as he had already been refunded the proportionate amount of Rs.25,53,247 and tax amount of Rs.6,19,668, and his failure to excavate was due to his own obstinate refusal to use conventional methods.
Law Points
- Government Resolution dated 12.03.2013 clauses 11(b) and 11(c) prohibit use of suction pump and require conventional methods
- bidder bound by auction conditions despite knowledge
- no bona fide attempt to use permissible methods disentitles refund
- refusal to excavate absent suction pump permission not a ground for refund
- proportionate refund for period of judicial stay sufficient compensation
- writ of mandamus cannot compel refund absent legal entitlement
