IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15771 of 2009 1. M/S RUBI STONE CHIPS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR UPENDRA MOHAN SINGH, S/O LATE NARSINGH SINGH, R/O VILL- HURKA, P.S-TILAUTHU, DISTT- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, MINES & GEOLOGY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS ----------- 3/ 03/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have been a successful bidder at an auction for settlement of stockist licence for crushed stone minerals. The settlement made in his favour in the auction held on 25.5.2006 has been cancelled on 26.6.2007 for his failure to comply the terms of settlement fully within the time granted notwithstanding further opportunities for the same. The petitioner preferred Revision Case No.37/07 before the Mines Commissioner which has been dismissed on 22.9.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner had partly complied with the conditions by submitting the Pollution Control Board Certificate. He was unable to deposit the first installment of the bid amount within three days on account of the illness of his mother. He is still willing to make lump sum deposit. 2 Reliance has been placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8385 of 2007 (Sanjay Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that he may be permitted to deposit the amount due. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the order of the revisional court is reasoned and the Writ Court may not interfere with the same as the facts with regard to non-compliance of the conditions of the settlement are not in dispute. The Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the order of the revisional court. No infirmity in the decision making process has been pointed out. The impugned order notices repeated opportunities to the petitioner, not denied by him before the revisional court. No fault can be found with the reasoning of the revisional court that a party in auction is expected to participate in a state of full preparedness. If the petitioner breached the conditions of the settlement by not submitting first installment for about nine months in lieu of the original three days permissible, the fact that a latitude may have been granted to him by the respondents cannot vest in the petitioner a right to demand further latitude. The petitioner was unable to furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim for failure to deposit 3 within reasonable time based on an alleged plea of his mother’s illness. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh sought to be relied upon, the facts appear to have been fundamentally different. There the delay was occasioned on account of refusal of permission by the Pollution Control Board and which came to be received belatedly. It is completely distinguishable on its own facts. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)