IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.695 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 241/2010) NAVIN KUMAR SINHA S/O SHRI KEDAR PRASAD SINHA R/O MO BABIBPURA, P.O.& P.S.SOHSARAI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT-NALANDA. . .....Appellant VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH. 5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH. .......Respondents ---------------------------------- With Letters Patent Appeal No.706 of 2011 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 465/2010) SANJIV KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM BILASH SINGH C/O SHRI MAHADEV PRASAD, & P.O. & P.S.- RAJAULI, DISTT.- NAWADAH. ...Appellant VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- MINES COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH. 5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH .....Respondents With 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.738 of 2011 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 493/2010) VYAS KUMAR @ BYASH KUMAR S/O SHRI MAHADEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF P.O. RAJAULI, PS RAJAULI, DISTRICT NAWADAH ..Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- MINES COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE MINES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH. 5. THE ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, NAWADAH .....Respondents -------------------------- For the appellants: Mr. S. D. Sanjay, advocate For the respondents: Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, advocate ----------- 2 09-08-2011 In all the aforesaid three cases, a common order is under appeal and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Admittedly the period of lease granted to the appellants for mining stone as a minor mineral has expired after the period of ten years from the date of lease. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had to approach this court in the year 2008 because of illegal or alleged illegal cancellation of their lease deeds in the year 2007. The 3 writ court has dismissed the writ petitions holding that there is no illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities. On behalf of appellants, it has been submitted that if the orders of the authorities passed in the year 2007 are further enquired into and found to be illegal, the appellants may be entitled to claim lease for a further period so as to compensate them for the period their lease remained cancelled. It was further submitted that, in any case, if the orders interfering with the lease of the appellants prematurely are found to be illegal, the appellants can claim damages on that account. We are of the considered view that now when the period of the lease has expired, these cases are infructuous, lease has to be in accordance with the amended rules by a public auction and the period cannot be extended by way of compensation. If the appellants are interested in compensation on account of alleged illegal termination of their lease, they may have a separate cause of action because they had not 4 approached this court for damages. Hence, we grant liberty to the appellants that, if so advised, they may claim damages for the alleged loss in accordance with law. The appeals and the writ petitions shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. If claim for damages is raised, then the order of the writ court shall not be taken into consideration by the concerned court so as to cause any prejudice to either of the parties in the matter of such claim. It is further clarified that any claim for damages shall be decided on its own merits as we have not expressed our views on merits. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)