IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5728 of 2006 RAM KUMAR PRASAD, RAM KUMAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE GUROO CHARAN SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAREO, POLICE STATION BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, REVENUE, PATNA. 5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, PATNA. 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DANAPUR, PATNA. 7. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIHTA, PATNA. 8. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BIHTA POLICE STATION, DISTRICT PATNA. 9. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANGER, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR. 10. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER COD, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR. 11. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER THREE LINE, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR. 12. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER LINE, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR. 13. THE INSPECTOR OF WORK LINE, EASTERN RAILWAY, DANAPUR. For the petitioner : M/s R.C. Sinha, Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. V.M. Sinha, AC to AAG-13. For the Railway : Mr. Bhupendra Narain Yadav, Advocate. For the Mines Department : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 03. 29.03.2011 Counsel for the Railways and the district administration are directed to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court dated 10.9.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10138 of 2004, Annexure-9 so that there is no extraction of sand within 2000 feet south and 1000 feet north of the Koilwar bridge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State representing the two district administrations, Patna and Bhojpur, Railways and the Mines Department of the State Government. 3. Petitioner is the raiyat of plot nos.747 and 1921 appertaining to khata nos.400 and 401 measuring an area of 3.42 and 1.26 acres of land in village Pareo, police station Bihta, district Patna. He is desirous of having sand stocking licence over the aforesaid land from the Mining Department of the State Government, which is being 2 refused on the ground that he is not a mining lessee. 4. Counsel for the Mines Department states that petitioner is not a mining lessee and if any stocking icence is allowed to him there is chance of petitioner indulging in illegal extraction of sand and to avoid such illegal extraction of sand stocking licence is being refused to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Mines Department, however, states that department will have no objection if petitioner offers his land to any other mining lessee on rent and the mining lessee may be allowed sand stocking licence over the aforesaid land of petitioner. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Mines Department, I direct the competent authority of the Mines Department to consider the case of any other mining lessee for grant of sand stocking licence over the lands in question, provided the said mining lessee has obtained a lease of the lands in question or has taken the lands in question from the petitioner on rent. Any application filed in compliance of this order by the concerned mining lessee with due authority from the petitioner should be considered by the competent authority of the Mines Department for grant of sand stocking licence in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the application along with a copy of this order before the competent authority of the Mines Department. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)