IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.925 of 2018

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9562 of 2015

======================================================

Surajdev Singh @ Suraj Baba S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o- Panchayati

Akhara, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology,

Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna

2.

The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat

Building, Patna.

3.

The Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

4.

The Collector, Gaya.

5.

The Director Mines, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Deputy Director, Mines, Gaya.

7.

The Assistant Director, Mines, Gaya.

8.

The Mines Inspector, Gaya.

9.

The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate

For the State

:

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.A. 7

For the Mines

:

Mr. Naresh Dixit, Special P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 17-04-2019

This intra court appeal is about the dispute of

mining rights of stone quarries stated to have been settled

through an auction on 30^th December, 2008 and is confined to

the claim in respect of two quarries, one over Block No. 1 and

the other over Block No. 2 of Plot No. 789 of Mauza Bodha

Patna High Court L.P.A No.925 of 2018 dt.17-04-2019

2/34

Chak, District- Gaya. The settlement was concluded through

auction under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972

(hereinafter referred to as “the 1972 Rules”). Two lease deeds

dated 14^th of May, 2009 were executed between the appellant

and the Collector of District- Gaya for a period of five years,

with effect from 26.05.2009. Apart from the security deposit,

Block No. 1 was settled on a royalty of Rs. 1.55 crore and Block

No. 2 was settled for Rs. 25.55 lacs.

2. The appellant complains of not having been

allowed to commence mining operations in respect of the

aforesaid two Blocks due to non-demarcation of the settled area,

which, according to the appellant, took place on 8^th September,

2011 for the first time. Thus, the first complaint is of not

allowing the appellant to quarry the stones as per the terms of

the agreement, which was delayed for more than two years from

26.05.2009 to 08.09.2011 on account of the respondents

themselves having not demarcated the area resulting in the

mining operations having not commenced at all in respect of

these two Blocks. It is on 08.09.2011 when for the first time, the

appellant commenced his operations on permission of the

department itself on the conclusion of demarcation proceedings.

3. The second part of the complaint is that the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.925 of 2018 dt.17-04-2019

3/34

auction lease of the appellant has been determined by the

Collector on erroneous considerations vide order dated 16^th of

November, 2013, whereafter also, the appellant has been unable

to carry out the mining operations, which had to even otherwise

continue till 26^th of May, 2014, as the lease was for five years.

4. Thus, these two periods, as indicated above,

resulted in deprivation of the mining operations and, therefore, a

prayer has been made to quash the orders of cancellation of the

lease of the appellant and to allow the appellant to commence

and continue his mining operations for the entire period he has

been wrongfully prevented from availing the benefit of five

years of mining arising out of the agreement dated 14.05.2009.

5. The facts that have given rise to the controversy

have been indicated in the impugned judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 29^th June, 2018