IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9781 of 2009 M/S Krishna Prasad & Company through its partner Ajay Kumar, son of Surendra Prasad, resident of village - Nehaluchak, P S & District - Nawada With its Head Office at Village - Pathra English, P O - Orhanpur, P S - Mufassil, Nawada, District - Nawada - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The Additional Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Deputy Director of Mines, Magadh Range, Gaya 4 The Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Nawada 5 The Assistant Director of Mines, Nawada - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Gopal Bohra, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocates For the respondents : Mr V M K Sinha, Spl PP (Mines) *** 3 10.11.2009 The petitioner was given settlement of Unit 1 and Unit 2 of Balughats at NH 31 for the period, 2007 to 2009 on payment of yearly lease rent. Yearly lease agreements are to be executed. On 29.12.2007, that is the end of the first calendar year, permission for renewal was granted which was communicated to the petitioner on 31.12.2007. Petitioner, on that very day, demanded work order and transport challan with effect from 01st January, 2008. These documents are necessary for him to mine and remove the sand. The Collector, who is the licensing authority, did not grant the work order or the transit terms. He sought a clarification from the State as to whether the renewal agreement requires registration or not. Petitioner was, thus, deprived of mining because of the permission not being granted. State Government, on 08.01.2008, gave the guidance clearly opining that no such registration was required. 2 This was received by the Collector through FAX on 09.01.2008 and, thereafter, the Collector issued the work order and the transit permit on 11.01.2008. Petitioner’s only grievance is that before he is asked to deposit any further money for the year 2009, as he had already deposited the entire money in 2008 in advance, he should have been given a proportionate adjustment of these 11 days when he was prevented from carrying on mining activity because of laches on part of the State. It appears that the district level authorities not having acceded its request, he preferred an application before the State Government. The matter was taken up by the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar. He first called for a report from the Collector. The report of Collector is Annexure-11 to the writ petition and is dated 27th of February, 2009. The facts, as noted above, are part of the report. Thus, the facts aforesaid are not in dispute. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar then considered the matter and was clearly of the opinion that the petitioner was wrongly prevented from carrying on mining activity and, as such, was entitled to proportionate remission though the Principal Secretary erred in restricting the period upto 08.01.2008 which was the date when the State Government clarified the position. That decision of the Secretary is to be found in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It appears the matter was taken up by the Minister Incharge and by a one line order, referring the report of the Collector as referred to above, he has held that the petitioner is not entitled to remission. It is this order that is under challenge. 3 A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that as per Clause 9 (1) of the terms and conditions of settlement, petitioner was obliged to get the agreement registered before he could begin work. He had not got agreement registered and, as such, he is not entitled to remission. I am sorry to note that this is not a stand anywhere by the authorities earlier. The report of the Collector (Annexure-11) is clear and unambiguous. It clearly mentions that awaiting Government clarification, the Collector did not issue work order and transit permit for the period 01.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. There is not a mention in the said letter that the work and transport permit was not issued because the agreement was not registered and on registration of agreement, it was thereafter issued. To the contrary, the report itself shows that the State Government was of the view that work permit etc could not be withheld and had to be issued. This is the finding of the Principal Secretary as well in Annexure-12. Those are correct. The Minister has said that as per report of the Collector, petitioner is not entitled to adjustment. I have perused the report of the Collector many a times. I do not find any such recommendation by the Collector. Thus, the order of the Minister cannot be supported either in fact or in law. The order of the Principal Secretary is correct. Petitioner is entitled to remission. The order of the Principal Secretary requires one modification. The Principal Secretary had opined for adjustment upto 08.01.2008. This has to be extended to 11.01.2008. As I have already noted above, the Principal Secretary has reconsidered the matter on 08.01.2008 that is the day when he sent clarification but the Collector’s report clearly states that the said 4 clarification was received by him on 09.01.2008 and he issued the work order and permits only on 11.01.2008. Thus, petitioner is entitled to proportionate remission for the period of 01.01.2008 to 11.01.2008 in proportion to the lease rent for the entire calendar year 2008. The petitioner would now be required to deposit the entire money which he is required to pay for the year 2009 and within 15 days from production of copy of order of this Court before the Collector, Nawada, the Collector would direct the Department to issue a refund order of the said proportionate amount to the petitioner. Petitioner would, thus, first be required to pay the amount and then get a refund, as indicated above within 3 weeks. The Collector would ensure the same. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)