JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol. J.

Following question arises for consideration before this Court:-

Does the conduct of the petitioner disentitle him from making the claim that the action of the State in granting extension of mining lease on an amount slightly higher than the prevalent rate amounts to unconscionable, illegal, arbitrariness or unreasonable act?

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to levy and charge royalty for the extended period of settlement of the sand ghats in the District of Patna, according to the terms and conditions of the sand policy 2013, the tender document for settlement for the period 2015-19 and the settlement agreement.

(ii) Consequent to grant of relief no. (i) to issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the excess royalty paid by the petitioner for the extended period i.e. from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that extensions granted to the petitioner from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and from 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, were extensions of the existing settlement for the years 2015-2019 upon the same terms and conditions and therefore the Respondents could not have varied the terms and conditions thereof, more particularly insofar as calculation of payable royalty for such extended period is concerned.

(iv) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that for the extended period i.e. from 01.01.2020 till 31.10.2020 and 01.11.2020 till 31.12.2020, the petitioner was liable to pay royalty at the rate of 120% of the royalty payable for the year 2019.

(v) This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that action of the Respondents in charging royalty for the extended period, at the rate of 150% of the royalty payable for the year 2019, is incorrect and illegal as the same amounts to modifying/altering of the terms and conditions of the existing settlement agreement, which is not permissible in the case of an extension.

(vi) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that import of memo no. 4948 dated 27.12.2019 and memo no. 4949 dated 27.12.2019 was merely to extend, enlarge and prolong the existing lease/settlement and therefore the respondents could not have modified the terms and conditions thereof, particularly insofar as calculation of royalty for such extended period is concerned.

(vii) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the action of the respondents in this matter is completely unjustified and unwarranted.”

3. It is not in dispute that vide a written agreement dated 16.09.2015, rights for mining the sand in accordance with the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) stood accorded to the petitioner. The grant, which is commonly termed as settlement, was for a period of five years commencing from the calendar year 2015 up to 2019. The settlement amount for these five calendar years, as stipulated in the agreement, reads as under:-

Settlement amount of calendar year, 2015 is Rs.41,15,41,390/-(Fourty One Crores Fifteen Lacs Fourty One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Only)

Settlement amount of calendar year, 2016 will be 120% of calendar year 2015 settlement amount i.e. 49,38,49,668/-.

Settlement amount of calendar year, 2017 will be 120% of calendar year 2016 settlement amount i.e. 59,26,19,602/-.

Settlement amount of calendar year, 2018 will be 120% of calendar year 2017 settlement amount i.e. 71,11,43,522/-.

Settlement amount of calendar year, 2019 will be 120% of calendar year 2018 settlement amount i.e. 85,33,72,226/-.

4. This agreement did not contain any condition entitling the petitioner for either extension or renewal. It is also

not in dispute that the grant, by virtue of Rule 34 of the Rules can be renewed on the application being filed by the lessee. But even this was not done.

5. It