ANAND VARDHAN PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original respondent Nos.9 and 10 in W.P.(L) No.6248 of 2004 [in fact as per nomenclature prevailing in the Jharkhand High Court it should have been W.P.(C)]

(2.) It appears that a lease agreement was entered into between the erstwhile State of Bihar and one Sri Mathura Prasad for mining purposes. Thereafter the name of legal heirs of Mathura Prasad, namely, Satyendra Prasad and his sons was entered into in the lease deed by virtue of decree passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1970.

(3.) It further appears from the facts of the case that Satyendra Prasad expired on 7/2/2003 and legal heirs of Satyendra Prasad applied for substitution in the lease deed under Rule 25A of Mining Concessions Rules, 1960 enacted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.