IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18606 of 2009 M/S SINGH STONE CHIPS THROUGH ITS PARTNER VINAY KUMAR SINHA (NOW PROPRIETOR) SON OF LATE AYODHYA PRASAD SRIVASTAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HURUKA, P.S. TILAUTHU, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM. .. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5. DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. .. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner for Department of Mines and for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was a successful bidder on 20.09.2006 for establishment of a stone crushing unit. However, it came to be cancelled on 26.6.2007 because he did not deposit the first installment in time and neither did he produce the necessary certificate from the Board. 3. Despite the fact that the writ petition was filed on 24.12.2009 after serving two copies on the counsel for the Department of Mines, no counter affidavit 2 has been filed by them. A counter affidavit by the Board is on record. 4. The writ petition appears to be raising questions of fact with regard to the terms of settlement, within what time the first installment was required to be paid, whether any relaxation of time on conditions was permissible, the stand of the Department of Mines that the petitioner did not respond to letters dated 2.1.2007 and 12.4.2007 asking him to deposit the first installment as also to obtain the N.O.C from the Board. The petitioner denies receipt of any such notices. The petitioner further contends that an agreement between him and the Department of Mines in pursuance of his being the highest bidder was yet to be signed only whereafter the question of payment of installment was to commence. He relies on a representation dated 20.4.2007 said to have been sent under UPC. 5. The Department of Mines raises an objection of delay before this Court to urge that the presumption attaching to a communication sent through UPC is rebuttable and it is for the petitioner to establish that it was actually sent and received. He next submits that against 3 the order of cancellation dated 26.6.2007 the petitioner has filed the writ application on 24.12.2009. If he was not vigilant for protection of his interests the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8385 of 2007 dated 21.11.2007 shall not any bring to any relief him simply on grounds of similarity. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application dated 24.7.2007 sent under UPC was but a revision before the Commissioner under section 45 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules and therefore the respondents cannot insist that the petitioner should also have approached this Court directly without availing the alternative remedy. 7. If the Department of Mines had chosen to assist the court by filing a counter affidavit, the Court may have been able to give finality to the litigation today itself. The reluctance of the Department of Mines to assist the court in dispensation of justice leaves it with no option, in lieu of the several un-answered questions, to remand this matter to the Commissioner, Department of Mines to hear the parties and dispose of the issue on all aspects presently discussed by reasoned and speaking order in exercise of 4 his Revisional jurisdiction within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It may only be noticed that the counter affidavit of the Pollution Board avers that N.O.C. was granted in favour of the petitioner for six months on 4.12.2006 vide Annexure-A which prima facie appears in contradiction to the order of cancellation dated 26.6.2007. 9. The writ application stands disposed off. Ibrar/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)