IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3948 of 2009 Krishna Prasad & Company through its Partner Ajay Kumar, S/o-Sahdeo Prasad, R/o-of village-Nehaluchak, P.O., P.S. & District-Nawada, H.O. at Village-Pathara English, P.O.-Orhanpur, P.S.-Mufassil, District-Nawada. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director of Mines, Magadh Range, Gaya. 4. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Nawada. 5. Shambhu Prasad Sahu, the Assistant Director, Mines, Nawada. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alamdar Hussain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Bohra, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Special P.P. (Mines) ---------- 04 02.02.2011 By this application, the petitioner has sought modification/clarification of order dated 10.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9781 of 2009. Counter affidavit having been filed, with consent of parties, this application was heard for final disposal at this stage itself. The writ application aforesaid was filed on 13.08.2009 making a grievance that petitioner who had got sand mine lease for a period of three years, subject to annual renewals within the said period, was entitled to remission in the money payable by it to the State in respect of the first 11 days of January, 2008. On account of wrongly not being permitted to mine and remove sand during this period as would reveal from the order dated 10.11.2009 passed in the said writ application, Collector, Nawada did not permit mining seeking some clarifications from the State. Clarifications having been - 2 - received after 11th January, 2008, he was permitted to mine. Petitioner applied for 11 days’ remission, which was considered and allowed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology but restricted up to 08th January, 2009 only. This order was on non est ground, as found by this Court in the writ application, was set aside by the Incharge Minister. Petitioner challenged the order of the Minister depriving him to proportionate refund or adjustment. After the writ application was filed the last installment of 2009 was due from the petitioner. Petitioner withheld the same claiming adjustment against proportionate refund due. This Court after hearing the parties by final order dated 10.11.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No.9781 of 2009, clearly held that the order of the Minister could not be sustained. This Court further held that the order of the Principal Secretary restricting the refund to 08th January, 2008 instead of 11th January, 2008 could not be sustained. This Court, accordingly, directed the State to refund the amount paid in proportion for the period 1st January, 2008 to 11th January, 2008, which was due to the petitioner for almost two years. At the same time, this Court directed the petitioner to immediately deposit the last installment of the year 2009 in full. State laid no claim for interest on delayed payment of last installment of the year 2009 and, accordingly, the petitioner did not press the claim for interest on delayed refund but no sooner the writ application was disposed of petitioner was slapped with a demand of delayed payment of interest of about Rs.5,79,000/- by order dated 26.11.2009. This necessitated filing of this modification application wherein petitioner - 3 - has clearly sought order to be exempted from payment of interest only in respect of the last part of 2009 as otherwise State should be directed to pay interest on the delayed refund. In this modification application the details of demand as raised by the State is annexed. It is apparent that the delayed interest has been charged by the State is in respect of the years 2007, 2008 and the full year 2009. Having considered the matter, in my view, so far as the year 2007&2008 is concerned, petitioner cannot dispute the liability. But so far as 2009 is concerned, the writ application was filed before the last installment was due and payment was withheld asking for refund in respect of the first part of the year 2008. This Court settled the matter without awarding interest as against either party. Thus, clearly so far as the last part of 2009 is concerned, the interest as demanded by the State, which appears to be about Rs.1,00,446/-, is not payable as State has not paid interest over the delayed refund appertaining to first 11 days of 2008, which refund was delayed by more than two years. That clearly was the intention of this Court when it did not award interest as against either party for its delayed compliance and directed both the parties to pay amounts independently and get refund independently. With these observations, this application stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)