IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17981 of 2008 1. MUNNA YADAV, son of Late Deva Yadav, Resident of Magadh Colony, P.S. Magadh Medical College, Gaya, District- Gaya 2. Upendra Narayan Singh, Son of Late Foudar Rai, Resident of Mohalla- Chandauli, P.O + P.S- Chandauti, District- Gaya ------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Assistant Director, Mines and Menirals, Gaya 4. The District Mines Officer, Gaya ------------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State :- V.M.K.Sinha, Special P.P. Mines ----------------- 2. 22.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. (Mines) for the State. The two petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the Moram Mining Lease to the petitioner no. 1 for a total area of 3.5 acres and to petitioner no. 2 for a total area of 14 acres of land both of them situated in New Plot No. 798 (Old Plot No. 606) of Jagarnathpur Mauza in the Gaya District. Both the petitioners have filed their respective applications on 29.1.2006 before the District Magistate, Gaya for grant of the Moram Mining Leases respectively in their favour. It is stated that on 12.2.2008, their applications were sent to the District Mining Officer, Gaya for necessary action and the petitioners also provided the information that were sought from them in this regard. Inspection as directed was also made by the Mining inspectors and by letter dated 11.4.2008 the names of the petitioners were recommended for grant of - 2 - the said mining leases. In the meantime, the District Magistrate, Gaya ordered on 13.5.2008 that the grant of lease of mining should be made through public auction or tender. The petitioners also filed representation on 20.5.2008 before the District Magistrate, Gaya praying that their applications should be disposed of within 120 days as provided by Rule 11 (1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972. On expiry of the aforesaid period of 120 days, each of the petitioners again deposited the amount of Rs. 2000/- for application forms. Thereafter direction was sought from the Director, Mines & Minerals Department, Government of Bihar, Patna regarding the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya on 13.5.2008 for granting the lease of mine through auction. By his letter dated 29.3.2008, the Director, Mines informed that the leasing out of Moram should not be done through public auction or tender and since not has been in Rule 9(1) as stated by the State Government in this regard and therefore the Rule applicable to the Rule 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the District Magistrate ought to have considered and passed a reasoned order in terms of Rule 20 of the abovementioned Rules if he intended to reject the application. Further, it is submitted that under Rule 12(2) of the Rules, preference is to be given to a person who has made the first application over those who made the application subsequently and since the two petitioners were the first, if not the only applicant, for grant of mining leases of Moram with respect to the aforementioned - 3 - pieces of land, their applications ought to be have been considered and allowed in terms of the provisions of the Rules. It is submitted that in any case, as rightly pointed out by the Director, Mines in his letter dated 29.3.2005, there can be no occasion for granting the leases by public auction or tender since there is no notification of the State Government under Rule 9(A) of the Rules. It is submitted that although Rule 11(2) provides for a deemed refusal of the application if not disposed of within a period of 120 days as specified in Sub-Rule (1), still in terms of Rule 20 it is required of the authorities to reject an application only on the basis of good and valid reasons which must be duly recorded as per the said rule; for all the aforesaid reasons, the respondent District Magistrate ought to be directed to consider the applications of the petitioners in this regard and not act in terms of the general notice (Annexure-9) issued under which the auction of the leases of the said plots of land along with others has been fixed on 30.12.2008. Learned Special P.P. (Mines) on the other hand submits that there is no right or vested right in any person to get a mining lease in his favour as has been laid down by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. It is submitted that in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hind Stone etc.: AIR 1981 SC 711, it has been laid down that even a renewal of mining lease is not a matter of right or vested right and the same has to be considered by treating it as a fresh application. It is submitted that it has been further laid down in the said decision that the authorities concerning the grant of - 4 - renewal of mining lease are entitled to act in terms of the rules prevalent at the time of consideration of the application and the rights of the parties will not flow from the date of the filing of the application. In this regard learned Special P.P. Mines produced before this Court a gazette notification dated 4.6.2008 issued by the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar under Rule 9(A) of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules which provides for settlement of mining leases with respect to Moram by public auction for a period of five years in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 52 of the said Rules. On the basis of the said notification learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has no case and the authorities have rightly issued the notification for settling the mining lease on 30.12.2008. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is in agreement with learned Special P.P. (Mines). It is evident from the various decisions of the Supreme Court including that in the case of Hind Stone (supra) that the case of the applicant for mining lease has to be considered in terms of any rules that may have come into force even subsequent to the filing of the application for mining lease and is not a matter of right or vested right. The writ application, accordingly, has no merit and it is dismissed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)