IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.666 of 2008 M/S BABU STONE UDYOG Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Dr. Anjani Pd.Singh, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar-1, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Spl. P.P. Mines ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 28th August, 2008 The counsel for the appellant submits that on 26th June, 2007, few orders came to be issued by the District Mining Officer, Rohtas, (Sasaram), cancelling settlement of mining area in favour of three parties, namely (i) Sanjay Kumar Singh; (ii) M/s Bajrang Stone Udyog; and (iii) Babu Stone Udyog (the present appellant). Three writ petitions came to be filed by the three lessees aggrieved by the order of cancellation. The writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar Singh (CWJC No.8385 of 2007) came up for consideration and the Single Judge by his order dated 21st November, 2007 allowed the writ petition. The other two writ petitions filed by M/S Bajrang Stone Udyog (CWJC No.10816 of 2007) and M/S Babu Stone Udyog, the present appellant (CWJC 11046 of 2007), came up together for - 2 - consideration before another judge on 25th July, 2008. He submits that by order dated 25th July, 2008, the Single Judge has dismissed the two writ petitions filed by the present appellant and M/s Bajrang Stone Udyog. The counsel submits that the order impugned in the present appeal cannot be allowed to stand, being inconsistent with the order dated 21st November, 2007, passed by the Single Judge in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh. He further submits that for the reasons indicated by the Single Judge in the order dated 21st November,2007, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 2. Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Government counsel could not point out any feature of distinction in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh and the present appellant. To our query, as to whether any appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the order dated 21st November,2007, the answer of the government counsel was in the negative. He, thus, did not dispute that the order dated 21st November, 2007, has attained finality. 3. The Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh passed the following order: “ In such a situation, in law, I think it is a fit case in which this writ petition be allowed. The impugned order dated 26.6.2007 in Letter no.1601/M issued under the signature of District Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to continue as a lessee. The petitioner must immediately deposit the amount due, which, as per the writ petition, is in the form of draft and ready with the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed.” 4. Since the aforesaid order has attained finality, for want of - 3 - any challenge by the Mining Department or its functionaries, the case of the present appellant being similarly situated deserves to be treated alike. 5. Without going into other aspects of the matter, for the reasons stated by the Single Judge in the order dated 21st November, 2007, we are of the view that the order dated 25th July, 2008 cannot be allowed to stand , otherwise it will result in two inconsistent orders in relation to similarly situated persons. 6. Consequently, the order dated 25th July, 2008 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed in terms of the order, which we have noticed above in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh. No order as to costs. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Sunil