Alok Kumar Sinha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: –

(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing letter no. 2005 dated 02.04.2025 issued by Respondent Additional Secretary whereby petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025 has been rejected.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice bearing no. PR No. 000159 (Mines) 2025-26 published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 04.04.2025 whereby the respondents have published a notice for auction of 32,20,180.39 CFT mineral lying at Mauja Mathokar Surdaspur, Circle Sheikhpura, P.O Sheikhpura, Khata 272, and 132 Plot 1030 (P) and 32 (P) Block 04.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to permit the petitioner to pay remainder of the additional royalty in installments and remove the mineral lying at the mining site.

(iv) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the action of the Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to pay the remainder of the additional royalty amount and trying to auction the mineral as much less consideration is completely unjustified and arbitrary.

(v) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that petitioner's failure to comply with the earlier order of the Mines Commissioner contained in memo no. 5577 dated 24.11.2023 was solely attributable to the Respondents and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same.

(vi) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner company had participated in the auction for obtaining the mining lease for stone with respect to land situated at Mauja Mathokar Surdaspur, Circle-Sheikhpura, PO-Sheikhpura and Khata-272 and 132 Plot 1030 (P) and 32(P) Block-04, admeasuring 12.50 crores (hereinafter for brevity referred to as said land). Pursuant to participating in the auction, the petitioner company emerged as the highest bidder at Rs. 29,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine crores) and was granted the mining lease with respect to the said land for a period of five years (30-03-2017 to 29-03-2022). Thereafter, the petitioner company deposited a security amount of Rs, 2,90,00,000/- (Rs. Two crores and Ninety lakhs) and entered into a lease agreement with the State of Bihar on 30-3-2017 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ application). According to Part-V of the said agreement, the petitioner company was supposed to deposit the entire auctioned amount of Rs. 29,00,00,000/- (Twenty-Nine crores) in 5 equal early installments of Rs. 5,80,00,000/- ( Rs. Five crores and 80 lakhs).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Schedule-II of the Bihar Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (which was in force at the time of the execution of agreement) contemplated that in case settlement is made through auction, the royalty under Rule 26(1)(b) would be the auction amount. The same provision has been incorporated in Schedule-III (A) of the 2019 Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the settlement was through auction, the auctioned amount was the royalty which the petitioner was liable to pay. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended to have deposited the entire royalty amount of Rs. 29 crores along with applicable interest for delayed payment as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had also obtained environment clearance from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, which was contained in Reference No. 428 dated 19-12- 2016. According to the environment clearance granted to the petitioner, the proposed capacity of production was kept at 11,41,250 tons per annum (Annexure-P/3 to the writ application). Thus, the petitioner was ent