IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 11565 of 2002 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI RANJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF SHITALPUR, P.S.-MUFASSIL, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. ……………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, MINES, MINERAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, MUNGER. 3. THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, MUNGER. 4. THE ASSISTNAT DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, MUNGER. 5. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER, MUNGER. ……………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Spl P.P.(Mines) ------------ 7 1.5.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. The prayer in this writ application in paragraph no. 2 reads as follows : - (i) The impugned notice dated (Annexure- 1) so far it relates to item no. 4 & 5 which are already under the petitioner’s grant of lease for the period 93-2003 be quashed. (ii) The respondents be restrains from interfering with the petitioner’s right, title and interest within the period 1993-2003. (iii) The respondents be commanded to collect revenue rent from the two wings of the State Government in respect of same piece of land and extend exemption to the petitioner. From the order of this Court dated 16.1.2003, it would appear that an adverse interference was drawn against the petitioner for filing the wholly belated writ application containing misleading and half truth statements. The order of this Court dated 16.1.2003 being relevant is also 2 quoted hereinabove : - “It appears that on 24th August 1984 a mining lease for a period of three years expiring on 24th August 1987 was granted in favour of the petitioner. From the records it does not appear that after 1987 any fresh lease was granted or the lease was renewed in relation to the plot no. 193 of Mauza Hasanpur, Police Station Munger admeasuring 4.08 acres. While I was dictating the order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1987 so also in the year 1990 the lease was renewed for three years every time. In any case, since after 1993 neither an order of grant of fresh lease or renewal of lease has been passed by any competent officer in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner made some application for renewal of the lease but the application did not find favourable consideration, therefore, vide annexure-3, the District Mining Officer required the petitioner to produce some more documents. According to the petitioner, some more documents were submitted and since thereafter he is paying the lease rent, the royalty and the renewal amount but till date no order has been passed in his favour and contrary to the deemed lease, vide annexure-1 survey no. 193. admeasuring 4.08 acres has been divided into two and is being put to auction. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that if proper orders are not passed on the application for grant or renewal of the lease then such application would be deemed to be rejected. Placing reliance upon annexure-1 it is submitted that if the Commissioner (Mines) extended the period of three months only, enabling the Collector to pass final orders, then it must be presumed that on expiry of three months from 6.11.1998 the application stood rejected. From annexure-11, communication dated 9th July, 2000 issued by the District Magistrate, Munger, it would clearly appear that the petitioner 3 was deemed to be in possession as a licencee and was to be benefited by the orders passed in favour of as many as eight persons. If that is so, it would not lie in the mouth of the State Government to say that there was some deemed rejection. Be that as it may, the present petition projects a very sorry state of affairs. The lease came to an end in the year 1993, an application for renewal was filed, the application was incomplete, there was a direction to submit some more documents and for a period of five years and more the Collector, whosoever he was, did not find time to pass final orders in relation to grant or renewal of the lease. The petitioner says that even today he is in possession of the property and he is carrying out the mining operation. This statement made by the petitioner gives a slap on the fact of the mighty State Government when it says that the application is deemed to be rejected. Let the concerned Secretary make an enquiry into the matter and file his personal counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. He shall also be obliged to inform this Court that how many applications for grant of prospecting licence of mining lincence are pending, how many renewal applications are pending and how many miners are operating in the field without a renewal. The Authority shall be obliged to furnish the complete details because this Court wants to know that what persuades the Officers, who are paid by the exchequer, to fail in discharge of their duties cause loss of the revenue to the State Government. This Court may also advise the State Government at a later stage to take suitable legal action against all such erring officers who either in connivance or collusion with such miners or so are failing to discharge their duties and are causing illegal loss to the State and illegal gain to such persons …………………” Pursuant thereto separate counter affidavit 4 were filed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Mines, District Fisheries Officer as also by Mineral Economist of the State of Bihar wherein apart from disclosing each and every aspect, it has also been stated that the petitioner had been only granted lease for a limited period i.e. from 24.8.1984 to 23.8.1990 and his renewal application was thereafter pending for want of royalty clearance certificate to be produced by the petitioner and ultimately it was rejected on 25.8.2001. The possession of the lease hold area of the petitioner was also taken back on 15.9.2001 but the petitioner suppressing all these facts had filed this writ application on 9.10.2002. In this regard it would be also useful to quote paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent 2 to 4 duly sworn by Sri Jai Prakash Singh, Mineral Economist, which reads as follows : - “That the writ petition as filed by the writ petitioner is misconceived. A mining lease was granted to the writ petitioner in Mouza Hasanpur bearing plot no. 193 over an area of 4.01 acres for cuarrying of the stones with effect from 24.8.1984 for three years i.e. upto 24.8.1987. The first renewal was granted on 23.8.1990 but since the petitioner did not submit the required fee and deed document for execution of the lease within time as per rule 25(1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules within 90 days therefore, the lease granted was deemed 5 rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner moved a revision application under rule 45 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules in Revision Case no. 47/1992 and first time, time was granted upto 30.4.1992 to the Collector for disposal of the matter in accordance with law. Even thereafter the petitioner failed to comply the order and the Collector by order dated 19.5.1992 cancelled the renewal. Again the petitioner moved before the Commissioner in Revision Case No. 277/1992 and the time was granted upto 1.9.1992 for depositing the required documents. Therefore though the petitioner deposited some amount in view of security money but he failed to deposit the entire amount as required under the law and thereafter neither the lease was executed and the period of second renewal ended. Thereafter on 15.4.1993 the petitioner filed third renewal for 10 years, since the petition for renewal of the lease was time barred it was rejected and against the rejection order the petitioner preferred revision before the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 367/1993 and he has moved at least 17 times and times were granted till 8.11.2000 and he continued to work in the mines and lastly the Collector rejected his renewal application by order dated 25.8.2001.” As there is no rejoinder to any of the three counter affidavit filed by the respondents and duly served on counsel for the petitioner, this Court has to proceed that the averments made in the counter affidavit are correct. Thus on the own showing of the petitioner, he had both suppressed facts and had given several false and misleading statement as explained in the counter affidavit Respondents 1 to 6 4 and thus had not approached this court with clean hands. In addition to it this Court would also find that a huge public revenue i.e. more than Rs. 5.09 lacs was outstanding against him for the aforesaid holding over the lease area, upto December 2000 itself. It is thus clear that non-appearance of the Counsel for the petitioner today is quite deliberate to avoid a harsh order. The petitioner however cannot escape the consequences as also avoid his liability for making a false statement before this Court and thus abusing the process of court as also for the dues outstanding against him for continuing in possession of the lease hold property after expiry of the period of his lease. In that view of the matter, this writ application is fit to be dismissed with a direction to the respondents to realize the entire outstanding amount of dues with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.8.1910 from the petitioner within a period of six months even by taking coercive steps against him but ofcourse in accordance with law. At the same time the Mines Commissioner is also directed to fix individual responsibility and take strong disciplinary action against the erring officials with 7 where connivance and/or collusion the petitioner had continued to remain in possession over lease hold property for a period of over eleven years i.e. 24.8.1990 to 14.9.2001 despite expiry of the period of lease of the petitioner on 23.8.1990. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 25000/- to be realized from the petitioner by the Respondents along with other dues from the petitioner. Narendra/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)