IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10816 of 2007 M/S BAJRANG STONE UDYOG Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.11046 of 2007 M/S BABU STONE UDYOG Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 25.07.2008 In both the writ applications the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.6.2007 contained in annexure-5 to the writ applications which has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Rohtas cancelling settlement of auction made in favour of the petitioners for not depositing the auction amount as well as the requisite documents for more than 9 months of the auction. It is the case that subsequently the petitioners went to deposit to some money as the licence fee but the same was not accepted by the respondents. Petitioners were also asked to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Bihar State Pollution Control Board which was done on 4.12.2006 and 10.1.2007. Further case is that when they went to the office of the District Mining Officer with the documents and a sum of Rs. 2,00,715/- and 1,93,000/- respectively on 18.6.2007 it was not accepted and the impugned letter dated 26.6.2007 came out to be issued against them without giving them an opportunity. Petitioners have also brought on record Xerox copy of so-called drafts as a proof of the amount which they wanted to deposit. On a pointed question put by the Court to the petitioners they have no satisfactory explanation as to why it has taken so much 2 of time in depositing the requisite fee with the respondents. They did try to show that they were trying to get ‘No Objection Certificate’ and other formalities but then these are the responsibilities entrusted upon the petitioners and settlement of auction cannot be kept in abeyance merely because the petitioners require their own free time to complete the formalities. This is no satisfactory explanation in the eyes of law. If 9 months time was not enough to fulfil the obligations then the respondents cannot be blamed for taking the action against the petitioners. The Court gets a feeling that petitioners had hurriedly got some drafts prepared when they knew that inevitable is going to happen against them. It is much of co-incidence that the drafts have been made ready on 18.6.2007 which is a week before the cancellation order was issued against them. The writ applications filed by the petitioners challenging annexure-5 is misplaced and since they have failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the decision besides the Court is also of the opinion that even from the point of equity petitioners have no case. The writ applications are dismissed as devoid of any merit. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)