IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.331 of 2008 JEHAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.5.2008 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.12734 of 2007 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant was granted mining lease for removal of stone and moram initially for a period of ten years with effect from 1.10.1991, which was to expire on 30.9.2001. Before the expiry of the said period of ten years, writ petitioner-appellant filed application on 3.4.2001 for renewal of the lease. The prayer made by the writ petitioner-appellant was processed and ultimately by order dated 7.4.2001, it was directed to be renewed for a further period of ten years commencing from 1st of October, 2001. Later on, the grant of renewal of the lease for a period of ten years came to be scrutinized and ultimately by order dated 22.5.2007 same was cancelled. The revision application preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the writ application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. While dismissing the writ application, the learned Single Judge observed that “renewal made by the authority after the amendment brought about on 23.3.2001 to the Bihar Minor 2 Mineral Concession Rules would be illegal exercise of power and shall not confer any right upon the petitioner. It is relevant here to state that by a notification published in the Bihar Gazette dated 24th of March, 2001, certain amendments have been made in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972. By virtue of Rule 2 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2001, after Rule 9 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, Rule 9A has been added. Same reads as follows : “Rule 9A – Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may by notification in Official Gazette direct that any mineral may be leased out or settled by Public auction/tender in the manner prescribed in rule-52.” By virtue of Rule 3 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001, after the Rule 22, Rule 22A has been added and Rule 22A(4) as added by the aforesaid amendment reads as follows : “Rule 22A(4) - The existing quarrying leases shall not be renewed but it would be allowed to subsist for the remaining period for which they have already been granted on the same terms and condition. Provided that at the end of the period for which they had been granted the area settled for quarrying will be governed by rule 52.” As the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 has come into force on 24th of March, 2001, by virtue of Rule 22A(4) quarrying lease was not to be renewed. 3 Mr.Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that by virtue of Rule 9A of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 as amended by Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001, the State Government possesses power that any mineral may be leased out or settled by public auction/tender in the manner prescribed in Rule 52 but so long such notification is in not issued, recourse to Rule 22A(4) was not fit to be taken into. He further submits that the writ petitioner-appellant was given lease for removal of stone chips and moram and the notification issued under Rule 9A does not cover moram and in that view of the matter, writ petitioner-appellant had the right of renewal of the lease at least so far as the moram is concerned. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Sinha. Rule 9A and Rule 22A(4) inserted in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 operate in altogether distinct field. Rule 9A confers on the State Government to lease out or settle any mineral by public auction/tender. But so far as Rule 22A(4) is concerned, it in clear terms provides that existing quarrying lease shall not be renewed. Taking into account the aforesaid provision, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that on account of the amendment, the renewal made by the authority was absolutely illegal and rightly cancelled. It has next been contended that though the 4 notification was published on 24th of March, 2001, but same was not made available to the public and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that the said notification has come into force. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Versus New Tobacco Co. and others [1998(8) SCC 250]. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Sinha and the authority relied on has clearly distinguishable Rule 1(iii) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 provides that the rule shall come into force at once. Undisputedly the rule was published in the Gazette on 24th of March, 2001. In the face of it, it cannot be said that the rule has not come into force. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ) (Kishore K.Mandal, J.) Narendra/