IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.476 of 2009 BISHWAJEET SINGH son of Sri Tapeshwar Singh, resident of village Barun, PO & P.S. Barun, District Aurangabad (Bihar)… … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Khanan Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad, 4. The Assistant District Khanan Officer, Aurangabad (Bihar), 5. The Khanan Development Officer, Aurangabad (Bihar), 6. Md. Nakib Ahmad, son of Md. Shafi Ahmad, resident of village Nasriganj, P.O. & P.S. Nasriganj, District Rohtas (Sasaram)… … Respondents/Respondents with LPA No.501 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus BISHWAJEET SINGH & ANR For the Appellant: Mr. B.P. Varma, Sr. Advocate, M/s Anil Kumar Singh No. 6 and Yogendra Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Special P.P.Mines- Cum-SC III. ----------- 6 06.01.2010 Though these two appeals were linked and as respondent no. 6 in L.P.A. No. 476 of 2009, who is respondent no. 2 in L.P.A. No. 501 of 2009, has not yet been served with the notice, the said appeal is segregated and directed to be taken up separately. Thus, we are only to deal with L.P.A. No. 476 of 2009. We have heard Mr. B.P. Varma, learned senior 2 counsel for the appellant, and Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel No. III for the respondent-Department of Mines, Government of Bihar. At the very outset, it is seemly stated that both these appeals assail the order passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 306 of 2009. There is no difficulty to advert to the various facets separately, as the grievances, per se, in two appeals, are quite distinct. In L.P.A. No. 476 of 2009 the grievance put forth by the appellant relates to refund of certain amount. The learned single Judge had not adverted to the same. However, in this appeal, a direction was issued to the learned counsel for the State to find out as regards the correspondence to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Mining Department, has filed the counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1487351/-. In view of the aforesaid, let the said amount of Rs. 14,87,351/- be refunded to the appellant, namely, Bishwajeet Singh, within two months from today. At this juncture, Mr. Varma, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that more sum is due from the Mining Department, as the appellant was not permitted to work 3 for certain period. This Court cannot enter into the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be permitted to ventilate his grievances as to how further sum is due within a stipulated period before the Mining Department and the department may be directed to deal with the representation so filed by the appellant within a specified period. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that if the appellant submits a representation claiming higher sum by indicating reasons for the same within six weeks from today, the same shall be dealt with by the Mining Department within eight weeks therefrom. It is needless to say that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of by assigning cogent reasons and not in a bald manner. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)