IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1152 of 2009 1. AJAY KUMAR, son of Shri Babuanand Sinha, Resident of Village & P.O. Rajgir, P.S. Rajgir, Dist. Nalanda. 2. Vijay Kumar Son of Late sidhnath Prasad, resident of Birpur, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul. 3. Rajendra Prasad Sinha, son of late Baldeo Prasad, Resident of Bhado Kherapar Rajgir, P.O. & P.S. Rajgir, Dist. Nalanda. …………….Petitioners/ Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Collector, Nawada. 4. Assistant Mining Officer, Nawada. ……………..Respondents/ Respondents. ----------- 6 14.03.2011 The present L.P.A. arises out of the order dated 6.5.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5771 of 2009 in which the petitioners have questioned the order passed by the Collector, Nawadah in case nos. 13/2006, 14/2006 and 15/2006 and the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Mines, Government of Bihar in Revision Case Nos. 14/2007, 15/2007 and 16/2007. The main grievance of the petitioners, appellants herein is that the Collector, Nawadah has cancelled the mining leases of the petitioners on the ground of illegal mining although the Commissioner, respondent no.2, had held that the charge of illegal mining is not proved The contention of the appellants is that there is no time limitation for executing the lease deed even though they have deposited the rental and royalty to respondent no.4. The learned Single Judge having gone into the case of the petitioners, appellants herein has found that a show cause was 2 issued to the petitioners on the point of non-execution of the lease deed within 90 days as per Rule 25 of the BMMC Rules, 1972, but the petitioners had failed to reply the same and therefore the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It was found that although there was provision of extension of time but the petitioners never applied for extension of time for execution of the lease agreement and therefore no benefit could be given to them of such extension. It has further been held by the learned Single Judge that as no steps was taken by the petitioners for execution of the agreement for about four years after sanction of lease in 2002 and therefore the same must be deemed to have been revoked in view of provisions of Rule 25 of BMMC Rules, 1972. It has been argued before us as before the learned Single Judge by the petitioners, appellants herein, that there is no limitation prescribed for execution of lease deed, but we are of the opinion that as the lease was sanctioned in the year 2002 and as no steps was taken for execution of the agreement for about four years, the petitioners, appellants are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, there is no need to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and as such this L.P.A. is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)