IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.400 of 2007 Mahesh Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3 30.6.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of Mining department. The petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 8.7.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar in Misc. Case No.1 of 2005 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to extend the lease granted in the year 1999 for a period of ten years instead of five years has been rejected. The petitioner states that he was an applicant for grant of mining lease on plot no.1030 part situated in village Masekhar in the district of Sheikhpura. He was successful in the bid but he was granted lease only for a period of five years instead of ten years. The petitioner submits that in view of the amendment brought to Rule 7 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 in the year 1990, the term five years was substituted by term ten years. On the aforesaid basis, the petitioner has made his claim that the lease in fact ought to have been granted for a period of ten years in stead of five years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Collector, Sheikhpura and ultimately the matter traveled to the Commissioner in Misc. Case No.1 of 2005. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order dated 8.7.2006 did not 2 accede to the prayer of the petitioner to extend the lease to ten years. However, he directed the Collector and the District Mining Officer to conduct public auction of the plot in question again in which liberty was granted to the petitioner to participate. Counsel for the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Mines Department state that section 9A was inserted in the year 2001 which stated as follows: “9A- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may by notification in Official Gazette direct that any mineral may be leased out or settled by Public auction/tender in the manner prescribed in rule-52”. It has further been contended that pursuant to amendment in Rule 9A a notification dated 17.4.2001 was issued in terms of Rule 52 limiting the period of lease to five years from ten years. It would appear from Annexure-1 that the petitioner was granted lease for a period of five years by the competent authority on 23.10.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the amendment in Rule 7 incorporated in the year 1990 w.e.f. 16.9.1989 the period of lease was extended to ten years in place of five years. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of amendment of 1990 vide Annexure-3. It would appear from the amendment that the lease can be granted for a maximum period of ten years but it does not mean that in all 3 KHAN circumstances the lease has to be granted for a period of ten years. It is for the authorities concerned to decide the tenure for which lease is to be granted. All will depend upon the terms and conditions set out at the time of seeking application of lease. It further appears that 1989 amendment was modified by substituting Rule 9A in the year 2001 which provided that any mineral may be leased out or settled by Public auction/tender in the manner prescribed in rule-52. Subsequently, under rule 52 a notification was issued reducing maximum period for grant of lease to five years. I have already held that the amendment made in the year 1990 which even assuming to be governing the petitioner’s claim provided lease for a maximum period of ten years. It itself did not create a right in the lessee to claim lease for maximum period of ten years. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In case if the authorities would decide to lease out certain areas for mining purpose, it would be open to the petitioner to make an application for the same. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)