IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.292 of 2010 M/S Jai Maa Lakshmi Stone Works through its Proprietor Rameshwar Singh s/o late Mahadeo Singh, r/o New Gangauli Dalmianagar, P.S. Dihri, District – Rohtas ……… Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Mining, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. District Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram … Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. A.K.Thakur, Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocates For the State: Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate. --- 2 15/2/2010 IA. Nos.1453 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 67 days. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned. Interlocutory application stands allowed. LPA. No.292 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take the appeal for admission. Admit. 2 As respondent – State has already entered appearance, no further notice need be issued. On consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is finally heard. Calling in question the legal sustainability of the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No. 16789 of 2008, the present appeal has been preferred. In support of the appeal, it has been submitted by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge had earlier disposed of CWJC. No.8385 of 2007, whereby he had allowed the writ application though the combined order was passed in respect of the lease holder in the said case and the present appellant. It is contended by him that the learned Single Judge had not entertained the lis in CWJC. No.11046 of 2007. The petitioner therein, namely, M/s Babu Stone Udyog preferred LPA. No.666 of 2008. The Division Bench had disposed of the appeal on following terms: “3. The Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh passed the following order: 3 “In such a situation, in law, I think it is a fit case in which this writ petition be allowed. The impugned order dated 26.6.2007 in Letter no.1601/M issued under the signature of District Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to continue as a lessee. The petitioner must immediately deposit the amount due, which, as per the writ petition, is in the form of draft and ready with the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed.” 4. Since the aforesaid order has attained finality, for want of any challenge by the Mining Department or its functionaries, the case of the present appellant being similarly situated deserves to be treated alike. 5. Without going into other aspects of the matter, for the reasons stated by the Single Judge in the order dated 21st November, 2007, we are of the view that the order dated 25th July, 2008 cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise it will result in two inconsistent orders in relation to similarly situated persons. 6. Consequently, the order dated 25th July, 2008 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed in terms of the order, which we have noticed above in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh. No order as to costs.” Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is submitted by Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant being similarly placed should not be treated differently. Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the 4 State, submitted that in the said case the appellant was in default for a month whereas in the present case the appellant has committed default by seven months and had not deposited any amount. Without going into the aforesaid aspect, a query was made whether the appellant would deposit the entire bid amount within a fixed period and would the State have any objection to continue the lease for a period of 20 years fixed from the date of allotment commencing the year 2006. Learned counsel for the State fairly stated that as the period is not disturbed, he has no objection for the same. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that the appellant shall deposit the entire amount though it was supposed to be paid by way of installment, in one go by 25th of March, 2010. On such payment being made the lease deed shall be executed forthwith not later than a week and the appellant shall be permitted to operate for a period of 20 years commencing the year 2006. 5 In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)