Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Spl. P.P. for the Mines Department. The State is represented through G.A.-7.

2. Considering the identical nature of claim based upon same set of facts raising identical issue, with the consent of parties, both the writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Notably, the petitioner in both the writ petition is one and the same registered Company, who participated in the auction, pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, in relation to settlement of sand ghats at Nalanda and Banka districts, hence two writ petitions are filed for identical reliefs; hence for disposal of the cases, the Company is being referred as petitioner.

4. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondent to grant 82 days of settlement for mining rights for the district of Banka and likewise additional 63 days for mining right for the district of Nalanda with respect to the calendar year 2018. In the alternative, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a direction upon the concerned respondents to collect the balance of the settlement amount from the petitioner for the year 2018, reduced by a sum, which is payable cost, paid by the petitioner for those aforenoted days when the petitioner has not been allowed to perform mining activity without any rhyme and reason and without any jurisdiction and authority in terms of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1972’). Apart from the reliefs aforenoted, the petitioner has also prayed for additional consequential reliefs in para. 1 of the writ petitions.

5. The short facts, which led to the filing of the writ petitions are that the Government of Bihar in the Department of Mines and Geology vide Notification No. 2887 dated 22.07.2014 expressed decision to invite tenders for settlement of sand ghats located at different districts in the State of Bihar for the period 2015-2019, which included sand ghats at Nalanda and Banka district as well.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, NIT was published for settlement of sand ghats. The petitioner, a registered company, intending to participate in the settlement process, submitted technical and financial bids. In the auction, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and, accordingly, awarded settlement of sand ghats at Nalanda and Banka districts, for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner deposited the entire settlement amount for the year 2015 and likewise for the year 2016 and 2017. The petitioner also deposited the first installment of 50% of the settlement amount for the year 2018.

7. It would be worthwhile to mention that during the aforenoted period of settlement, the State of Bihar vide Notification No. 3018/M dated 10.10.2017 replaced the Rules, 1972 by the new Rules in purported exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’). The petitioner and other similar set of settlees approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17125 of 2017, along with other writ petitions, challenging the validity of the entire Rules stating it being violative of the provisions of the Act, 1957 and in the teeth of the settled principles of law that the right of the petitioner, as a settlee, was governed by the Rules, 1972.

8. The learned Division Bench of this Court, prima facie, on being satisfied the Rules suffered from severe legal infirmities, vide its order dated 27.11.2017 stayed the entire Rules and Regulations, in question, and directed that in the meanwhile the Rules, 1972 would be operative. Despite the aforesaid position, the respondent no.2 came out with different orde