The provision in Rule 57 (2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, which states that failure to dispose of an application within nine months shall be deemed a refusal, is only for the purpose of filing a review application before the Central Government. It does not mean that the State Government ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter after the lapse of nine months.

Choudhary, J.

1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a firm registered at Calcutta under the Indian Partnership Act, and Sri Prabodh Ranjan Das and Sri Pradosh Kumar Dey are its two partners, both being residents of Rajmahal. On the 26th of March, 1959, the petitioner applied to the Government of Bihar for the grant of lease for China clay under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) in respect of 155 bighas 1 katha 7 dhurs, which included plots Nos.28 to 30, 32, 34 and 40 in mauza Araji Mokimpore, P. S. Rajmahal and plots Nos.213 to 216, and 234 and 240 in mauza Saidpur, P. S. Rajmahal. That application was received by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar on the 30th of March, 1959, As no order was passed on the said application till the 17th of February, 1960, the petitioner made an application for review to the Government of India under rule 57 of the Rules, which is still pending before the Central Government, and no order has been made thereon. It is alleged that the Central Government has not been able to dispose of the said review application because the State Government has not submitted the relevant records called for by the Central Government. Respondent No.2 is a Lady Social Organiser in N. E. S. Block, Taljhari, district Santal parganas. It appears that she also made an application for the grant of mining lease for China clay over an area of 629 bighas 13 kathas 11 dhurs in village Araji Mokimpore, which was received by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar on the 4th of March, 1959. Another application was made on behalf of Messrs. Orissa Cement Ltd. , who are not parties to the present application, for the grant, of a prospecting licence for kaolinised sand stone over an area of 1466 bighas 17 kathas 15 dhurs in villages Kasva and others, which was received by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar on the 2lst of May, 1957. According to the show-cause petition filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, out of the total area of 155 bighas 1 katha 7 dhurs, as applied for by the petitioner, an area of only 5 bighas 8 kathas 17 dhurs is left in village Kasva beyond the area applied for by respondent No, 2 and Meassrs. Orissa Cement Ltd. It is alleged by the petitioner that about the 18th of July, 1960, it came to know that the State Government was taking steps to grant a lease in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the area applied for by her, which, as stated above, included portions of the area applied for by the petitioner, and the petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.540 of 1960, but was subsequently withdrawn on the 2lst of July, 1960. A notice of this application had been served on the Advocate-General of Bihar on the 18th of July, 1960, as required by the rules of this Court; and it is said that, during the pendency of that application, en the 20th of July, 1960, the Governmenmt of Bihar, by Order No.4348/m, granted a mining lease for china clay in favour of respondent No.2 with respect to an area of 167.32 acres including plots Nos.28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 40 in mauza Araji Monkimpore, P. S. Rajmahal, and plots Nos.213, 214, 215, 216 and 234 and 240 in mauza Saidpur, P. S. Rajmahal, which were in the application of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the State Government had no authority in law to grant a lease in favour of respondent No.2, and the order of the Government of Bihar is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. It has, therefore, been prayed that the above order of the Government of Bihar dated the 20th of July, 1960 be quashed.

2. Rule was issued by this Court against the respondents, and cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Bihar by filing a counter-affidavit, and it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that, the petition of r