IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16229 of 2007 RAJESH KUMAR, son of Sri Ram Khelawan Prasad, resident of village- Bhagwanpur, P.S. Rajauli,District- Nawadah. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, department of Mining., Govt. of Bihar,Patna 3. Deputy Director Mining, Magadh Anchal,Gaya. 4. Collector, Nawada 5. District Mining Officer, Nawada 6. Assistant Mining Officer, Nawada 7. Circle Officer, Rajauli,District-Nawada. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ebrahim Kabir,Advocate For the respondents:MR. V.M.K.Sinha, Special P.P., Mines. 2. 24.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P., Mines. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to exempt the rent due against the mining lease of 3.90 acres situated in Thana-Rajauli, Thana No.102, Block Rajauli, District- Nawadah and for a further direction to the respondents to extend the lease of the petitioner for another 10 years. The petitioner, who claims to be unemployed youth in the year 1998 applied for and was granted lease for mining of stones by the District Mining Officer, Nawadah on 6.7.2000, measuring 3.90 acres for a period of ten years. The work order was also issued by the Mines Inspector on 5.9.2000. Thereafter, however, it is the claim of the petitioner that no mining work could be carried on due to threats from the Extremists belonging to the M.C.C. The petitioner in this regard relies upon a certificate dated 20.3.2004 issued by the Circle Officer, Rajauli, which also mentions the fact that the mining work of the 2 petitioner is closed since 17.4.2001. The petitioner had paid some amount but due to closure no mining work was done during the entire period and now seeks a direction that the entire rent for the mining lease should be exempted. Learned Special P.P., Mines opposes the said prayer stating that there is no provision for granting any such exemption and it was for the petitioner to have considered all aspects of the matter before going ahead and getting the mining lease in the area. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for grant of security is quite bogus as for the first time in the year 2004 the said issue had been raised. It is further argued that on the one hand the petitioner seeks exemption stating that mining work could not be carried on due to threats from the M.C.C. but on the other hand, he wants further extension of the mining lease for another period of ten years. It is submitted that the two prayers of the petitioner are themselves contradictory and show the wrong intention of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any ground on the basis of which the prayer for exemption of rent can be legally permitted to him. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)