IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.205 of 2007 RAJEEV RANJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 1.5.2008 Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No.10585 of 2003 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters patent. Mr. Ajit Kumar appears on behalf of the petitioner. State is represented by Government Advocate No.10. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Spl. Public Prosecutor (Mines) appears on behalf of respondent no.2. By agreement dated 11th February,1998, writ petitioner appellant was given right for mining stone-chips i.e., minor mineral over an area of 0.55 acres of land bearing plot no.4011 within Mauja Tungi in the district of Nawada for a period of ten - 2 - years. It was handed over to the petitioner for mining on 14.6.1998. After enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was mining without obtaining Transport Challan illegally and on a surprise inspection it was found that he had illegally quarried 20,400 cft. morum and 10,200 cft. stone chips. It was further found that despite due notice he had failed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,868/- which he was required to pay for illegal mining. Accordingly, the mining lease was cancelled and the petitioner’s challenge had also failed before the revisional authority. Thereafter, he filed the writ application which has given rise to the impugned order. Mr. Ajit Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the writ petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.15,868/-, the amount said to have been due against him for illegal mining. In fact, he has submitted that the said amount has already been deposited We are of the opinion that mere deposit of - 3 - the said amount at such a distance of time will not render the order cancelling the lease to be illegal. It is relevant here to state that the mining lease has not been cancelled only on the ground of non-deposit of the said amount, but the petitioner had indulged in illegal mining and was carrying on the same without obtaining the Transport Challan. There is yet another reason to dismiss the appeal. According to the appellant’s own showing, the lease was granted for ten years and the agreement was executed on 11.2.1998. That period has also come to an end. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. HR ( C. K. Prasad, ACJ ) ( J. N. Singh, J )