Courts cannot fix sand rates; left to expertise of executive: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Dismissing a contention of a sand extractor challenging the state government's order of re-fixing the sand rates on a tonnage basis keeping in view the region of its availability, the High Court of Karnataka has said that it is left to the expertise of the executive, while judiciary cannot run a race with the government.

“What rates are proper and reasonable, is a matter left to the executive, which has the accumulated expertise and access to necessary factors, and therefore, the judiciary being the organ of state has to show deference to the decisions of other organs. In matters like this, the courts cannot run a race of opinions with the executive,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said in its recent judgement.

The HC said it was left to the government to decide how to benefit the exchequer from its properties.

“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is broadly in agreement made on behalf of the official respondents. Sand is a minor mineral and obviously, it is a state largesse; it has been a settled position of law that it is for the state to allocate such larges on a normative basis so that the exchequer is benefited,” it said.

Successful bidder

TV Prasad, a successful bidder in a public tender for extraction of ordinary sand had approached the HC challenging the government order of July 10, 2020, issued by the Desk Officer in the Department of Commerce.

Through this order, the government had re-fixed the rates based on the criteria of the region. The petition alleged that “the rates have been determined arbitrarily and unreasonably and to the prejudice of stakeholders; the impugned order suffers from lack of public interest and it is prejudicial to the interest of the exchequer.”

The government advocate however submitted that the government is the competent authority under the Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977 and the rates were fixed taking into account all relevant factors.

It was also submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had challenged the same earlier and they were rejected. The second reason for not interfering was the ‘unscrupulous’ attitude of the petitioner. The HC said he ought to have disclosed the earlier writ petition, “in all fairness”.

Dismissing the petition, it said, “However that has not been done. A Writ Court cannot come to the aid of unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner. This is yet another ground as to why we do not want to interfere in the matter.” (WP 15268/2023)