Disposed

Janardan Tiwari and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Apr 2011CWJC/1242/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding lessees seeking renewal of a mineral concession. Noting lack of documentary evidence for the renewal application and a waiver of the Rule 22 timeline via novation, the court held the application must be considered under existing law if compliant with renewal clauses.

What did the court decide?

The application stands disposed; petitioner directed to apply for renewal in accordance with the renewal clause and existing law.

Janardan Tiwari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1242 of 2011 JANARDAN TIWARI & ANR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .

¶2

¶3

11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State.

¶4

The petitioners were lessee under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules w.e.f. 31.10.2000 for a period of 10 years. The license has run its course. The petitioner desire renewal. The submission is that their representations dated 1.7.2010 and 5.7.2010 respectively are not being considered and disposed off. It is next submitted that under Rule 22 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, an application for renewal could be submitted 90 days before the expiry of the lease, but not earlier than 180 days. Prior to the representation the petitioners have applied for renewal on 1.7.2010, that is within 90 days.

¶5

Learned counsel for the State submits that as per

¶6

the pleadings a representation has been submitted by the parties on 1.7.2010 and 5.7.2010. That shall not tantamount to an application for renewal. There is no documentary evidence on record in support of the claim for having applied for renewal. Reliance is also placed on part 8 paragraph-2 of the lease agreement. It is submitted that

¶7

¶8

Rule 22 sought to be relied upon on behalf of the petitioners was consciously waived by novation when both sides agreed that application for renewal had to be submitted six calendar months before the expiry of the lease and that there should be no outstanding dues, rent and royalty etc. There is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner had fulfilled these conditions.

¶9

Rather than calling for a counter affidavit, when essential facts have not been asserted in the writ application, this application is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner had applied for renewal in accordance with the renewal clause, their applications may

¶10

be considered in accordance with the provision of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule in accordance with law preferably within the statutory period indicated. If there have been any statutory changes, needless to state that

¶11

every renewal amounts to a fresh grant.

¶12

The application shall therefore have to be

¶13

considered in accordance with the existing law.

¶14

The application stands disposed.

¶15

P.K

¶16

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Janardan Tiwari and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardan Tiwari and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Progressive Construction L Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Progressive Construction L Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rudal Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs the Bihar State Election Commi

Nityanand Ram @ Nityanand Saro Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Madhu Gas Enterprises Vs the Regional Provident Fund Co.