Disposed

Prabhat Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Dec 2014CWJC/5555/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his request for extension of a mining lease by the Mines Commissioner. The High Court held the order warranted no interference and directed a fresh consideration for remission of lease dues.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Petitioner directed to represent before Mines Commissioner for proportionate remission of lease amount.

Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5555 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== 1. Prabhat Kumar Pandey Son of Late Bhagirath Pandey Resident of 101, Savitry Bhawan, Main Road, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Town and District Patna, Managing Director, M/S Sweta Prabha Contractor Pvt. Ltd. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Sheikhpura 4. District Mines Officer, Sheikhpura .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Maijorwar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, AAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT

¶3

2 02-12-2014 Mr. Pankaj Maijorwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.K. Sinha for the Mines Department are present. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2014 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology in Revision Case No. 42 of 2012 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease period has been rejected in the light of the statutory provisions underlying the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

¶4

Although the matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders on Petition’ but considering the nature of grievance raised and since the pleadings are complete that the writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal by way of the present

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.5555 of 2014 (2) dt.02-12-2014

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

judgment.

¶8

Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Mauza Chakandra, in the District of Sheikhpura for a period of 5 years effective from 16.12.2008 to 15.12.2013. The Collector, Sheikhpura by order passed on 5.9.2012 required the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues within 30 days of receipt of the notice which was received by the petitioner on 22.9.2012. The petitioner in due compliance of the direction made the deposit of outstanding dues vide demand draft bearing DD No. 002680 dated 12.10.2012 on 13.10.2012 i.e. within the period of 30 days of the receipt of the notice but the Collector, Sheikhpura showing undue hurry passed an order on 8.10.2012 canceling the lease agreement itself. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred Revision Case No. 42 of 2012 before the Mines Commissioner and which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order passed on 29.11.2013. The mining lease as per the lease deed ended on 15.12.2013. Since the petitioner by virtue of the order passed by the Collector was deprived of the benefits attached to the lease deed for a period of 417 days that he filed a representation before the Mines Commissioner seeking permission to allow him to operate the mines for 417 days and which was rejected by the Mines Commissioner on 14.2.2014 in view of the stipulations underlying Rule 53 of the Rules whereby there is a clear bar on grant of mining lease for stones and even the

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.5555 of 2014 (2) dt.02-12-2014

¶10

3 / 3

¶11

existing leases have been permitted to continue for the remaining period only without benefit of renewal.

¶12

In the present case though the order on the cancellation of the lease was passed on 29.11.2013 by the Mines Commissioner vide order present at Annexure-2 and his lease was to expire on 15.12.2013 but he did not make any representation during the sustenance of the lease for its extension nor did he make any prayer for proportionate remission of the lease amount. On the contrary the representation in question was filed only on 14.2.2014 i.e. after the expiry of the lease. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order has been passed which apparently suffers from no infirmity warranting any interference.

¶13

The petitioner if so advised may represent before the Mines Commissioner for proportionate remission of the lease amount in view of the fact that for no fault of his own, he was denied the benefit of the lease for a period 417 days and any such representation being filed shall be considered and disposed of by the Mines Commissioner after giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Bibhash/-

¶16

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶17

Prabhat Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Pandey 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

Baidyanath Thakur Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/s Jai Maa Kali Timber and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahendra Narayan Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mohan Saw Vs The Bihar State Power holding Company Ltd.

Lalita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.