IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12010 of 2010 ========================================= MANOJ KUMAR, son of Late Gopal Krishna Dutta, R/o Balua Tal, P.O. & P.S. – Motihari, District – East Champaran …………………………………………………….…….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 3. The Director of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Commissioner – cum – Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, 5. The Chairman, Tata Steel Ltd., Bombay, House 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, 6. The General Manager, Byproduct Colliery, West Bokaro Division, Ghatotand, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, 7. The General Manager, Tata Steel Ltd., Jharia Division By Product Colliery, Jamadoba, Bhelatand, P.O. Jamadoba, Dhanbad (Jharkhand), 8. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi, 9. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, 10. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, 11. The General Manager, Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi and 12. The Govt. of Assam through the Chief Secretary, Dishpur, Gauhati …………………………………………….……... Respondents. ================================================ Appearance: For the petitioner: Mr Mukush Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State: Mr Vikas Kumar, AC to AG. For the respondent nos. 2,3, 11 & 12: Mr V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand: Mr Dhrub Mukherjee, Advocate. - 2 - =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 29.07.2010. Learned Advocate Mr Mukesh Kumar Jha appears for the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner claims to be a social worker. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the coal policy of the State of Bihar is not in place. The State of Bihar be directed to formulate a coal policy in accordance with the Memorandum dated 18th October 2007 issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Coal. Mr. Jha has submitted that on account of lack of definite coal policy in accordance with the aforesaid Memorandum dated 18th October 2007 the State of Bihar is losing revenue. We are hardly impressed by the submissions made by the learned Advocate. First, it may be noted that the Office Memorandum only notifies the coal policy adopted by the Government of India. No direction has been issued to any State Government much less the State - 3 - of Bihar to adopt a particular coal policy. It is not established before us that the existing coal policy of the State of Bihar is inadequate in any manner. This Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not supposed to sit in appeal over the policy decision of the State Government. Second, the relief prayed against the State of Jharkhand is clearly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Third, the petitioner has, except making vague averments, not brought any material on record to suggest that under the present coal policy or in absence of any coal policy, the State of Bihar is losing revenue. In our opinion the petition is vague and frivolous. Petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )