IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15536 of 2010 LALCHAND SINGH, SON OF LATE BANBARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MADUERANA, P.S. CHAINPUR, DISTRICT-KAIMUR(BHABHUA)………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF MINES ANDE GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. 5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. ………………………………………...RESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 6. M/S BSC-C & C ‘JV’, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (ACT NO.01 OF 1956) ON 16TH JULY 1996 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.70, SECTOR 32, GURGAON, HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER. 7. THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, BSC-C&C ‘JV’ COMPANY PLOT NO.70, SECTOR 32, GURGAON, HARYANA. ………………………………………RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- 7. 15.12.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7, learned counsel for the Mines Department and learned counsel for the intervenor. After hearing the parties, we find that there were disputes and private litigation in respect of settlement of mining lease for extracting Pahari Mitti as well as Stone 2 Quarry situated in the area in question in the district of Kaimur. After those litigations got settled and the Mining Department granted or continued the lease given to the parties, this writ petition has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation by one Lalchand Singh, a resident of the same area, seeking direction against the State of Bihar and its officials not to grant any mining lease and to stop mining activities in the vicinity of Madurna Hills bearing Survey Plot No.4084, Khata No.383, Thana No.167, Mauza Madurna, P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur. Besides, raising some legal aspects against the grant of lease to the lease holders, which matter has already been settled between the lease holder and the State, for invoking jurisdiction under Public Interest Litigation a plea has been raised that the area contains a structure which may be described as Barahdari and, therefore, it is religious place which must be protected from mining activities. Other ground is that there is mausoleum of one Bakhtiar Khan, which may be endangered by the mining activities. The private respondents and the intervenor have opposed this writ petition and have denied the existence of any religious or historical monument in the mining area. So 3 far as the official respondents are concerned, in their counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that the lease granted to the two lease holders does not affect any historical protected monument or any place of religious significance. In respect of alleged Barahdari, the officials have asserted that a dilapidated structure on four stone pillars covered by stone patia was found at the top of Madurna Pahari, which has been separately marked in the survey map over two decimals of land but this structure was never treated to be a religious place or a place of worship by the Muslim Community and is not visited by Hindu or Muslim Community treating it to be a religious place. So far as the Mazar and small Masjid in another plots situated at the western bank of Kuhira river is concerned, it is stated that they are at the distance of over 850 metres from the lease area of Pahari Mitti and about 800 metres from the lease area of Stone Quarry. Recently, a Mandir has also been constructed over another plot situated about 800 metres away from the lease area. So far as the mausoleum or Rauza of Bakhtiar Khan is concerned, it is situated in Village Malik Sarai away from the eastern bank of Kuhira river and it is more than 1000 metres away from the lease area of Pahari Mitti and Stone Quarry. It is not in 4 dispute that this monument is a monument declared to be a national importance but according to the guidelines covering such monument, it is at a quite safe distance from the mining area. In view of the facts noticed above and the allegations made by the intervenor that the petitioner is actually a person interested in grant of mining lease to another person who failed to secure lease in his favour, we are reluctant to entertain this writ petition any further as Public Interest Litigation. It is accordingly, dismissed. It goes without saying that the lease granted to the persons in the area should be operated in accordance with law. P.S. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)