IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10110 of 2003 SUSHEEL KUMAR, son of Late Raj Kumar Singh, permanent resident of village Majhway, P.O. Majhway, District Nawada--------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Mining Commissioner, Patna 3.The Collector, Nawada 4.The Assistant Mining Officer, Nawada 5.Rajesh Kumar, son of Vijay Kumar, resident of village and P.O. Bhadaraini, District Nawada--------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the respondents :Mr.Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, Spl. P.P., Mines For the State :Mr.Jainendra Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A.10 ---- 5. 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P., Mines. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.1.2000 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Patna in Revision Case No. 281/99 disposed of along with Revision Case No. 247/99 preferred by respondent No.5 and the order dated 13.9.1999 passed by the Collector, Nawada communicated to the petitioner by letter No. 710(M) dated 14.9.1999 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer rejecting the application filed by respondent No.5. The petitioner and respondent No.5 jointly applied for and were granted mining lease for a period of ten years by order dated 21.10.1997 by the Collector, Nawada 2 communicated to the petitioner by letter No.809 dated 23.10.1997 issued by the Assistant Mines Officer. Since the lease deed was not executed in time the Revision Application No. 6 of 1997 was filed before the Mines Commissioner, Patna for extension of time which was allowed by order dated 29.7.1999 giving 90 days time for execution. However, the respondent No.5 thereafter filed an application before the Collector praying that the lease deed may be executed in his favour alone as the petitioner was not taking interest and he himself had borne all the financial burden and by order dated 13.9.1999 passed by the Collector, Nawada the grant of lease itself was rejected. Aggrieved by the same both the petitioner and respondent No.5 filed Revision Case Nos. 281/99 and 247/99 respectively. Both the revision applications were dismissed by a common order dated 5.1.2000 of the Mines Commissioner which is impugned here. Learned Special P.P., Mines submits that in view of the fact that the lease itself had been granted for a period of ten years and even from date of extension granted by the 3 Mines Commissioner by his order dated 29.7.1999 in Revision Case No. 6/97 the period of ten years has expired. It is pointed out by him that in the meantime amendments have been made in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules under which a mining lease of the present nature is granted only for a period of five years, that too, on the basis of auction and there is no provision for settlement of the same by the mining authorities. For both the said reasons learned counsel submits that the writ application has become infructuous and no relief can be granted to him. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Khatar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. :1996(1) PLJR 251, in which it was held that where the period of lease and its renewal had expired then no relief could be granted to the petitioner as the writ application would become infructuous. It is evident from the aforesaid Full Bench decision that since the period for which the mining lease had been granted has expired, the writ application has become infructuous. 4 This Court further finds that the order of the Mines Commissioner is dated 5.1.2000 against which the petitioner has approached this Court after more than three years and eight months. The same shows laches on the part of the petitioner and for the said reason also his claim has become stale. For both the aforesaid reasons, the writ application having become infructuous and suffering from the vice of delay and laches, is dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/