IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8889 of 2006 SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE GOPAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAJPUTAN WARD NO.26 DEHRI ON SONE, P.O. DALMIA NAGAR, POLICE STATION DEHRI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, MINES AND MINERAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 6. SRI RAM AWADH SINGH, STENO IN OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINING OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 7. SRI TOOFANI DEALING ASSISTANT IN OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINING OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 8. MR. MOHAN CHOUDHARY, ASSISTANT CLERK IN OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINING OFFICER SASARAM ROHTAS. ----------- 03. 19.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Mines Department. 2. Petitioner was earlier allowed licence in form ‘L’ bearing Memo No.1339 dated 1.12.2004 for storage/trade in stone chips, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 to this application, wherefrom it appears that the said licence was valid until 31.12.2004. For renewal of the aforesaid licence for the year 2005-06 petitioner deposited the required licence fee of Rs.1,000/- under chalan dated 28.12.2004, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-2 to this application. Request of the petitioner for renewal of aforesaid 2 licence was not considered and he filed this writ petition on 25.7.2006 praying inter alia to direct the licensing authority to renew the storage/trade licence of the petitioner for the subsequent period as he never violated any terms of the licence. 3. This writ petition has remained pending before this Court for about five years but state respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. It is submitted by the State counsel that request of the petitioner made in the petition for renewal of licence for the period 2005-06 has already lapsed, as such, prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous. 4. In rejoinder counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that request of the petitioner for renewal of storage/trade licence for the year 2005-06 may have become infructuous on account of failure of this Court to take up the writ petition but the right of the petitioner to get the renewal of the licence for the current years i.e. 2011 and onwards is still subsisting and this Court should direct the licensing authority to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of 3 storage/trade licence in stone chips for the year 2011 and onwards without taking into account that petitioner was not granted such renewal for the preceding years as petitioner was not allowed such licence on account of failure of the authorities to consider his case as also of the inability of this Court to take up the matter. 5. I see substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and direct the licensing authority to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of storage/trade license in stone chips for the year 2011 and onwards in accordance with law without taking exception to the fact that petitioner was not allowed such renewal for the period 2005-06, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the licensing authority. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)