IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17538 of 2009 1. M/S SHIVAM STONE WORKS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJIV KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BRAHMANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- HATHANI, P.S.- NOKHA, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MINES, DEPTT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 4. THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 5. THE LAW OFFICER, DEPTT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA ----------- 2. 6.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Department of Mines. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2009, dismissing Revision Case No. 38 of 2007, upholding the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.6.2007, cancelling the settlement for stone crushing made in his favour on 21.6.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the original terms and conditions the first installment under the agreement amounting to Rs. 1,87,302/- was to be paid within three day of settlement. This condition was subsequently relaxed by the respondents themselves when they extended it first on 13.10.2006, again on 2.1.2007 and lastly on 12.4.2007. Referring to the impugned order dated 26.6.2007, it is submitted that it is apparent 2 that the respondents themselves relaxed/waived the original condition for deposit in three days for up to a period of nine months. If the original condition for time stood relaxed, the respondents were first required to give a show cause notice before cancellation. The petitioner had put forward a ground of illness which has not been disbelieved. The cancellation unilaterally without a show cause notice and opportunity to pay is therefore not sustainable. It is lastly submitted that in any event, if the petitioner did not deposit the first instalment within the extended time, under Clause-6 of conditions for settlement, the respondents could have demanded interest upon the arrears of the first installment. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 292 of 2010. Counsel for the Department of Mines relying on the Division bench judgment submits that the petitioner must deposit the entire amount of the first installment in one lumpsum. Secondly, that this shall not result in variation of the duration of the original settlement. The Department shall retain the discretion to act in accordance with Clause-6 of the conditions of settlement, if so advised. 3 If the petitioner offers to deposit the entire amount of the first instalment in lumpsum within a maximum period of six weeks from today, keeping in mind that the original conditions of three days for deposit had been waived by the respondents themselves and cancellation came to be done after nine months without a show cause notice, this Court directs the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the Division Bench order but without prejudice to its right for interest under Clause-6, but after due opportunity to the petitioner and the duration of the settlement. This order shall not detract in any manner from the rights and objections of the Department of Mines with regard to fulfillment of other conditions subject to which only the crushing rights in final be granted to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 26.6.2007 and 22.9.2009, are accordingly set aside subject to the aforesaid conditions. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)