IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10312 of 2003 Sandhya Kuar wife of Ram Bachan Singh Kushwaha , resident of village- Dhawadand, P.S. Sasaram, P.O. Dhawadan, District- Rohtas – Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner and Secretary to Department of water Resources, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 3. Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 5. Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram. 6. Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram – Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, A.C. to S.C. 23. For Respondent no.6: Mr. Vishwa Mohan Sinha, Advocate. 8/ 18-01-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The original writ petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 30.07.2003 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent- Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram, (Respondent no.6), whereby lease agreement dated 31st January, 2001 (Annexure-3) between Ram Bachan Singh Kushwaha, original writ petitioner (husband of the petitioner) and the respondent-authorities has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of impugned order neither any show- cause notice was issued nor an opportunity of hearing to the original petitioner Ram Bachan Singh Kushwaha, who has died during the pendency of the present writ petition and has been substituted by the present writ petitioner, 2 was given and, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the lease agreement, as contained in Annexure- 3, may be directed to be revived. 4. Learned Assistant Counsel to learned S.C. 23, appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 to 5 and Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 have strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and have submitted that under the changed circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the lease agreement (Annexure-3), it appears that lease was granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner for mining stone in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 with respect to the lands described in part-1 of the Schedule of the aforesaid mining lease for a period of ten years and obviously the period of lease expired on 13th December, 2010. 6. Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, has further submitted that after re-organization of erstwhile State of Bihar and creation of successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand, hilly terrain has reduced to a very small area in the successor state of Bihar and, in that view of the matter, there has been amendment in Bihar Minor 3 Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 in the year 2010 by a Gazette notification dated 4th February 2010 and rule 53 has been added, which is reproduced herein below:- “Rule-53- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bihar Minor Mineral Conession Rules, 1972 to the contrary- (1) No mining lease for stone shall be granted. (2) Existing leases for stone granted under rule 9 and rule 52 would be allowed to subsist for the remaining period for which they have already been granted but they shall not be renewed thereafter: Provided where period of lease has expired before coming into force of these Rules but requisite statutory approval from Govt. of India has been received before enforcement of these Rules, lessee may be entitled to renewal subject to fulfillment of other statutory obligation. Provided further that in public interest, if the State Government is satisfied that quarrying or mining of stone may not adversely affect ecology and environment and further there is requirement of stone for public use, it may relax the above restriction in any area for such period as it may deem fit necessary.” 7. In view of the amended rules, now mining lease for stone cannot be granted either in favour of the petitioner or any other persons. Further the 4 period of lease has already expired. 8. In the changed circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)