IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10667 of 2009 Krishna Prasad & Company through its partner Ajay Kumar S/o Surendra Prasad, Resident of village Nehalu Chak, P.S. & District Nawada, Head Office at village Pathara English, P.O. Orhanpur, P.S. Mufassil, Nawada, District Nawada Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Additional Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Nawada 4. The District Sub-Registrar, Nawada 5. The Assistant Director of Mines, Nawada ----------- 05/ 06.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is a mining lessee for sand. He has filed this writ application assailing the direction of the Assistant Director, Mines, Nawada contained in letter no. 140 dated 25.2.2008, Annexure-7A to this application and direction contained in another letter, bearing no. 141 dated 25.2.2008, Annexure-7B, whereunder he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,12,340/- and Rs. 4,12,200/- as stamp duty for registration of the mining lease document. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that registration of the mining (sand) lease document is not necessary which is evident from Memo No. 71 dated 8.1.2008, Annexure-5 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the State Government in the Mines Department and addressed to all the Collectors in the State. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the 2 prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. According to him the government decision communicated to all the Collectors in the State under Memo No. 71 dated 8.1.2008, Annexure-5 has been subsequently revised by the State Government as would appear from the impugned Annexures-7A and 7B itself whereunder direction to deposit the stamp duty has been issued to the petitioner with reference to the letter dated 6.2.2008 of the Principal Secretary- cum- Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the Principal Secretary- cum- Mines Commissioner may have taken decision dated 6.2.2008 in the file but the same has neither got approval of the State Government nor any communication to that effect has been issued to the Collectors of the district revising earlier decision dated 8.1.2008, Ananexure-5. 6. Let the petitioner challenge the two orders, bearing letter Nos. 140 and 141 dated 25.2.2008, Annexures-7A and 7B to this application before the Mines Commissioner on the ground that the direction contained in the aforesaid two letters is contrary to the instruction of the State Government as communicated to the Collectors of the district dated 8.1.2008, Annexure-5. The Mines Commissioner should decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this 3 order. 7. It goes without saying that if there is no order passed by the State Government revising the order dated 1.8.2008, Annexure-5, then the Mines Commissioner shall issue appropriate orders to the Collectors of the District for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner and others as the duty fee. 8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)