AMAN SETHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contending that the appellant should be allowed to operate his mining lease for a full period of five years from the date he was actually permitted to commence mining operations and he should not be compelled to pay royalty other than the mineral "removed and consumed" by the petitioner under the lease. This contention is being advanced by the appellant grounded on the fact that for no fault of the appellant, he was, on account of the obstruction created due to excessive demand of Stamp Duty, prevented from operating the mining lease as it could not have been done without getting the lease-deed registered. This in turn was based on the apprehension that since the law requires registration of the lease, its violation could have resulted in its cancellation.

(2.) Thus, a two pronged relief was claimed by instituting the writ petition that has given rise to this controversy where a mandamus had been prayed for coupled with a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 09.12.2016 whereby a demand of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- was made in respect of the second installment of royalty which according to the respondentDepartment was falling due, and was payable prior to 31st January, 2017.

(3.) The lease was advertised through a public notice dated 12.12.2014 against which the appellant applied and succeeded in getting a Letter of Intent on 10th of February, 2015 for a lease awarded under the orders of the Collector, Nawada dated 15.01.2015 for mining of stone over an area of 14 acres in Village Badhokra over Plot No. 4256 that was earmarked as Area No. 11, for a period of five years from the date of the execution of the lease which was to be compulsorily registered or else the lease would be cancelled. This Condition No. 4 of the lease is extracted hereinunder:-