IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10255 of 2008 Sanjit Kumar Singh, son of Late Baleshwar Singh, resident of Village- Bindaul, P.S. Khijarsarai, District-Gaya……………………………………………………………………..……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Collector, Gaya. 4. The District Mining Officer, Gaya. 5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Gaya………………….………………….Respondents. ----------- 2. 26.07.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed the writ application for a direction to the respondents concerned for settlement of mining area of Block No. 6 appertaining to Plot No. 1128 area 2 acres situated at Village- Bandhua within the district of Gaya in view of the fact that the petitioner was the highest bidder. It appears that the bid was held on 12.11.2007 wherein the petitioner was the only bidder. It further appears from Annexure-6 that the petitioner challenged the learned Collector’s order of cancellation of auction on the ground of being the only bidder in the auction, in Revision Case No. 14 of 2008 when the Commissioner, Mining, Government of Bihar, Patna, relying upon Clause 9 of the 2 auction, which provides that the Collector can reject the bid without assigning any reason and assuming that there is strong possibility of increase of revenue disposed off the matter directing for fresh auction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not apply in the second auction since the revision was pending but it appears from the revisional order contained in Annexure-6 that the Mining Commissioner allowed petitioner to participate in the second auction. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was either restrained or he could not participate in the second bid. However, in paragraph no. 17 of the writ application he has admitted that he is ready to offer more than the highest bidder of the second auction. It appears that due to lapse of time the application has become infructuous as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents Mining Department that the settlement has been done long back. Accordingly, this Court finds that matter needs no interference, hence, the 3 writ application is disposed off. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)