M/S. Aditya Multicom Private Limited vs State Of Bihar And Anr

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

"(i) For declaring Rule 35; Rule 36; Rule 37; Rule 47 and Rule 63(2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') -whereby the State has arrogated to itself the right to fix prices for sale by the settlees of the mining leases-as ultra-vires the Rule making power conferred upon the State vide Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act') as well as being colourable exercise of power and Ultra-vires the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act).

(ii) Consequent to declaring the Provisions of Rule 35, Rule 37 and rule 63(2) of the Rules as ultra-vires the letter bearing Memo No.5015 dated 20.10.2017-whereby the petitioner has directed to give objections to the Rate proposed and as also the State has stated that it would not be under any obligation to purchase any minimum quantity of sand-be quashed.

(iii) For declaring that the Rule 42, Rule 43, Rule 45 and Rule 47 of the Rules-whereby the State intends to control the sale of minerals excavated by the petitioner by assuming to itself the sole right to purchase from the settlees, at fixed price and without guaranteeing any minimum purchase, and sell to consumers through a chain of retail licenses-is ultra-vires the Rule making power conferred upon the State by Section 15 of the MMRD Act as well as it being in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution').

(iv) Consequent upon declaring the Rule 43, Rule 45 and Rule 47 of the Rules as ultra-vires and without jurisdiction be further pleased to quash the letters bearing Memo No.3024 dated 11.10.2017-whereby all the District Collectors have been directed to create a chin of retail licensees for storage and sale of Minor Mineral and the consequential advertisement-Memo No.3058 dated 12.10.2017-whereby the petitioner has been restrained from sell its excavated mineral outside the State.

(v) For declaring that Rule 75, Rule 77 and Rule 89 of the Rules is ultra-vires the provisions of the MMDR Act as the same overreaches the provision of the MMDR Act.

(vi) For declaring Rule 144 and Rule 145 of the Rules as ultra-vires Section 15 of the Act including such consequential provisions like Rule 25*** of the Rules-the aforesaid two Rule makes the Rules retrospective in nature and thereby takes away the "Accrued right" even when such powers have not been specifically conferred upon the delegatee (the State) by the delegator (the Central Government).

(vii) For declaring that petitioner, being a settlee under the provisions of the pre-existing Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Rules') is to be governed by the Old Rules as welll as the pre-existing Sand Policy, 2013.

(viii) For reading down the provision of Rule 64 of the Rules as the same overlaps the power conferred upon the Collector under Rule 56 and Rule 57 of the Rule.

(ix) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the various notifications, orders and directions issued under the provisions of the aforesaid rules of the Bihar Minor Minerals Rules, 2017 to the Petitioner-Company.

(x) For holding that the orders, notifications, Rules or Regulations made under the Bihar Minor Minerals Rules, 2017 is not applicable to the Petitioner-Company.

(xi) For such other writ(s), order(s), relief(s) under the facts stated herein-below, as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting our attention to the interim order dated 9.9.2019 passed in a bunch of these writ petitions, being CWJC No.15965 of 2017, titled as Puspa Singh and another vs. The State of Bihar and others and its analogous cases, states that with the passage of time Rules in question stand repealed and substituted by new Rules in the year 2019. As such no other and further orders are required to be passed in the present case, for the State has not precipitated any action in terms of Rules in question. Further, petition be disposed of as not pressed, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate action, if so required and desired at any point of time.

State has no objection to the same.

As such, as prayed for, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.