Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rudra Mining LLPversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court ordered the petitioner to approach the Collector under Section 67 of the Rules and disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief sought.

Summary

Rudra Mining LLP filed a writ petition seeking quashing of two letters issued by the Assistant Director and the Mineral Development Officer directing the firm to deposit additional security for successive years of settlement. The petitioner alleged that the letters were contrary to the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 and therefore illegal. The State and Mines Department contended that the grievance should be pursued under Section 67 of the Rules before the Collector, not through a writ. Justice Rajiv Roy accepted this view, directing the petitioner to approach the Collector within a week and to have the matter decided within six weeks, while maintaining the status quo. The writ petition was consequently disposed without adjudicating the merits of the quashing relief.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition is the appropriate remedy for challenging the letters demanding additional security deposits.
  • Whether the letters issued are violative of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • certiorari
  • security deposit
  • mineral concession
  • administrative law
  • Section 67
  • Bihar Minerals Rules
  • status quo
  • collector jurisdiction

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3917 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Rudra Mining LLP a limited liability partnership firm, through its Partner
                 Vishwajeet Kumar, aged about 39 years (male), son of Visheshwar Prasad,
                 resident of Village and PO-Pareo, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna.

                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department,
                 Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
           2.    The Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department,
                 Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
           3.    The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
                 Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
           4.    The Collector, Rohtas.
           5.    The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Rohtas.
           6.    The Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Rohtas.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Ms. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to SC-23
                 For the Mines          :        Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Utkarsh Pathak, Advocate

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-04-2026                     Heard Mr.Avinash Shekhar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned Spl. P.P. for the

                   Mines.

                                 2. The present petition has been preferred for the

                   following relief/s:

                                            (i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or

                                            direction in the nature of certiorari for

                                            quashing letter no. 543 dated 16.05.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.3917 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                            2/4




                                  (Annexure P5) issued by the Respondent

                                  Assistant Director, whereby and whereunder

                                  the petitioner has been directed to deposit

                                  Rs. 63,69,300/-as additional security deposit

                                  for the second year of settlement;

                                  (ii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or

                                  direction in the nature of certiorari for

                                  quashing letter no. 175 dated 03.02.2026

                                  (Annexure P6) issued by the Respondent

                                  Mineral         Development       Officer,      Rohtas

                                  whereby and whereunder the petitioner has

                                  been directed to deposit Rs. 76,43,160/- as

                                  additional security deposit for the third year

                                  of settlement;

                                  (iii) during pendency of this writ application,

                                  this    Hon'ble         Court    may       direct   the

                                  Respondents to not to take any other

                                  coercive steps against the petitioner for

                                  recovery        of     Rs.   63,69,300/-     and    Rs.

                                  76,43,160/-respectively;

                                  (iv)   this      Hon'ble      Court    may      further

                                  adjudicate and hold that letter no. 543 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3917 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                            3/4




                                  16.05.2025       and   letter   no   175   dated

                                  03.02.2020 are bad in the eyes of law as the

                                  same are dehors the Bihar Minerale

                                  (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,

                                  Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 and

                                  the tender document;

                                  (v) to grant any other relief or reliefs which

                                  the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the

                                  facts and circumstances of the case.

                       3. At the outset, learned counsel representing the

          Mines Department submits that the Assistant Director, Mines

          and Minerals, Rohtas at Sasaram had issued letter no. 543 dated

          16.05.2025 and letter no. 175 dated 03.02.2026 which could

          have been assailed before the District Collector, Rohtas at

          Sasaram under section 67 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession,

          Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules,

          2019 (henceforth for short ‘the Rules’), instead the writ petition.

          He further submits that if any petition is preferred, the authority

          shall ensure that it is taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest

          preferably within a period of six weeks.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

          shall be approaching the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram within a
         Patna High Court CWJC No.3917 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
                                                     4/4




                   week under section 67 of ‘the Rules’ but till then no coercive

                   steps be taken.

                                5. Learned Special P.P. for the Mines submits that the

                   order is dated 16.05.2025. We are in the month of April, 2026,

                   nothing has happened till date and he shall ensure that the

                   matter is taken to its logical conclusion.

                                6. This Court accepts the view put forward by the

                   parties and allows the petitioner to appear before the Collector,

                   Rohtas at Sasaram in a week who shall be deciding the matter

                   within a period of six weeks thereafter.

                                7. Needless to add, the status quo as existing today

                   shall be maintained which will merge with the order passed by

                   the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.

                                8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

                   observation.



                                                 (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.