JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and accordingly, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by the present singular order.

2. The first writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11054 of 2021 had originally been filed for directing the respondents to remove the restriction from generating e-challan on the portal http://portal.biharmines.in/forthwith and to allow the petitioner to sell sand from the stock-hold areas in the District of Rohtas, for which the petitioner has obtained K-License under Rule 39(1) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 2019’).

3. As far as the second writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 12178 of 2021 is concerned, the same had originally been filed for directing the respondents to remove the restriction from generating e-challan on the portal http://portal.biharmines.in/forthwith and to allow the petitioner to sell sand from the stock-hold areas in the District of Aurangabad, for which the petitioner has obtained K-License under Rule 39(1) of the Rules, 2019.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid two writ petitions, some developments have taken place leading to filing of number of Interlocutory applications in both the cases. The petitioner, in the first case, has filed one such interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 4 of 2021, wherein additional relief has been sought for inasmuch as now the petitioner seeks quashing of Memo No. 262 dated 07.07.2021 issued by the In-charge Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Patna Circle, Patna, whereby and where under 17 K-licenses issued to the petitioner in the district of Rohtas have been cancelled. As far as the second case is concerned, one such interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2021 has also been filed wherein an additional relief has been sought i.e. regarding quashing of Memo No. 193 dated 17.8.2021, issued by the In-charge Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Magadh Circle, Gaya, whereby and where under 11 K-licenses issued to the petitioner in the district of Aurangabad have been cancelled. Since the learned counsels for the Respondents have not opposed the said interlocutory applications, both the interlocutory applications i.e. the one bearing I.A. No. 4 of 2021 (in the first case) and the other bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2021 (in the second case) are allowed. It may stated that the counter affidavits filed by the respondents also deal with the issue of cancellation of the K-licenses of the petitioner, hence no additional counter affidavit is required to be filed as has also been averred by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Apparently, the facts of both the cases are more or less similar and the only difference is that while in the first case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11054 of 2021, the respondents had settled the sand Ghats situated in the District of Rohtas in favor of the petitioner by executing an agreement dated 21.04.2015 for a period of five years i.e. from 2015 to 2019 for the purposes of extracting and removing sand as per the provisions contained in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and those contained in Government Notification no. 277 dated 22.07.2014 as also as per the concerned Government orders and notifications, whereas in the second case i.e. CWJC No. 12178 of 2021 the sand Ghat situated in the District of Aurangabad was settled in favor of the petitioner vide agreement dated 24.07.2015 for a period of five years i.e. from 2015 to 2019. Thus this Court would be delving on the facts of the first case.

6. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner of the aforesaid two cases are that the State of Bihar had notified in the official g