IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11787 of 2004 MD.AHMAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 26.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P., Mines. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to execute the mining lease deed granted to the petitioner by the Collector, Sheikhpura, which is pending since long despite the order passed by the Mines Commissioner as back as in the year 1997. The relevant facts for the decision of this case are that by order dated 25.6.1995, the Collector granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years. The petitioner approached the Mines Commissioner by filing a revision application being Revision Application No.102 of 1995 claiming that the lease of mining ought to have been executed for a period of 10 years in terms of Rule 7 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules,1972. The same was allowed by order dated 14.6.1996. The petitioner thereafter approached the Mining authorities, but no action being taken by them, he again filed Revision Case No. 206 of 1997 before the Mines Commissioner, Patna and by his order dated 19.9.1997, the matter was remanded to the Collector, Sheikhpura granting two months time for executing the deed of lease. The petitioner claims that he had filed an application on 25.10.1997 before the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamui along with a copy of the order and all the relevant documents, but no action was taken by the authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner kept on 2 meeting the departmental authorities as also filing several applications of reminder and ultimately, he filed this writ petition on 23.9.2004. In the counter affidavit, the stand has been taken that the petitioner after obtaining the order on 19.9.1997 never approached the District/ Assistant Mining Officer to get the lease deed executed nor entered into an agreement. It is further asserted that the petitioner has come to this Court after a delay of 7 years from the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Mines Commissioner. The further stand of the State-respondents is that by notification No.29 dated 24.3.2001, the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 have been amended and under the new provisions the quarry lease of stone can be granted only by way of public auction in accordance with the new provision of Rule 9A read with Rule 52 and notification No. 702/M dated 17.4.2001 issued by the Government under the said Rules under which the quarry lease shall be granted for a period of five years and shall not be granted for more than two acres. It is further pointed out that by inserting Rule 22 A in the 1972 Rules, it has been provided that the existing lease shall not be renewed nor fresh lease permit shall be granted. In view of the aforesaid change in the law, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the lease of the petitioner granted under the old provisions of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 cannot be executed in the face of Rule 9 A read with Rule 52 of the amended Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was not at fault since he had repeatedly approached the 3 authorities and it is the Mining authorities, who have acted in a wrong manner. It is thus submitted by him that a direction should be issued to the Mining authorities to execute the mining lease in his favour for a period of ten years. This Court cannot accept the said submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that after obtaining the subsequent order dated 19.9.1997 from the Mines Department for the execution of the deed of lease within a period of two months, it was not open to the petitioner to have kept on approaching the authorities for a period of 7 years before he has come to this Court. It is a settled proposition that any one aggrieved by the action of the authorities must approach the writ Court within a reasonable period of time. It is not open to keep on approaching the authorities for an indefinite period. In the present matter, the petitioner has come to this Court after nearly seven years from the last order. In the meantime, the law governing grant of mining lease under the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 has also been changed. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to give any positive direction in favour of the petitioner, which would be contrary to the provisions of law, as they exist today, since any lease that can be granted to the petitioner can only be executed in terms of the present provisions. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rules cannot be applied retrospectively is fit to be rejected since in the present matter the lease cannot be granted to him from 1997 for a period of 10 years, rather his prayer is that the lease of deed should be 4 granted, as of today, for a period of ten years and hence, there is no question of any retrospective operation of the Rules amended in the year 2001. If the lease is granted only prospectively, then the application of the Rules also in the present case would be prospective and thus denial of grant of lease to him, as of today, cannot tantamount to applying the Rules retrospectively in his case. It is a trite proposition that the law assists a person who is vigilant and not one who is lax in asserting his rights in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction after a gross delay of nearly 7 years which, in the meantime, has resulted in the law itself being changed and it disentitles him to the relief that he could have got, had he approached this Court expeditiously within a reasonable period on the authorities refusing to act in terms of the order of the Mines Commissioner in the year 1997. Thus, the writ application must fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)