Judgment B.P.SINGH, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of respondent 4 and further to direct them to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of the entire area for which the petitioner filed his application on 3-1-1974. It has further been prayed that Annexure-8, the communication of the State Government addressed to the petitioner refusing to grant him mining lease and Annexure-9 the order of the Central Government passed under S.30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner, be also quashed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner J.S. Sharda as well as respondent 4 Banwari Lal Newatia filed applications for grant of mining lease over an area measuring about 27.30 hectares in villages Kamarhatu and Markemhatu in the district of Singhbhum for mining of soap stones and lime stones. The applications were made in respect of different areas of land but for the purpose of this application it is said that the area under consideration measured approximately 27.30 hectares and the area applied for by both the applicants was the same. The petitioner as well as respondent 4 filed their applications on the same day, that is, on 3-1-1974. It appears that respondent 4 filed Royalty Clearance Certificate on 14-5-1974 and the certificate of approval on 18-9-1974. These documents are required to be filed in support of the application for grant of mining lease as contemplated by R.22(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 . The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum pointed out that the application of respondent 4 was defective for non-filing of material documents under R.22(2) of the Rules. As observed earlier, these documents were filed on 14-5-1974 and 18-9-1974 even before the Deputy Commissioner submitted his report on 25-11-1974. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, however, also pointed out that so far as the petitioner was concerned he had not submitted the up-to-date certified copy of the khatian in respect of an area of 9.612 hectares, as a result of which that area could not be verified. The Deputy Commissioner had recommended that both the applications should be rejected. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, however, also pointed out that so far as the petitioner was concerned he had not submitted the up-to-date certified copy of the khatian in respect of an area of 9.612 hectares, as a result of which that area could not be verified. The Deputy Commissioner had recommended that both the applications should be rejected. 3 Since the State Government did not pass an order either granting or rejecting the application of either of the applicants within the statutory period, i.e. 9 months, the petitioner as well as respondent 4 filed revisions before the Central Government under R.54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 . While the revision petitions were pending before the Central Government, the State of Bihar granted a mining lease in favour of respondent 4. The first lease deed related to an area of 2.5 hectares which is dated 30th of March, 1976 and the other lease deed related to an area of 22.96 acres and is dated the 7th of April, 1977. When the revision application preferred by the petitioner came up for hearing before the Central Government, by order dated 9th of March, 1978, the revision application was allowed and certain directions were made by the Central Government. The aforesaid final order of the Central Government is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application and is dated 9th March, 1978. The Central Government in its aforesaid order observed as follows : "The State Government have passed orders vide their letter dated 7-4-1977 determining the priority in favour of Shri Newatia in accordance with Rule 22(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 . Certain procedural requirements are indicated in Rule 22(3) Apart from certificates envisaged under Sec. 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the presence or absence of the other documents envisaged under Rule 22(3) will not make a memorial difference to the question of inter se priority of the two applicants who have filed their applications on the same date, as these documents are only the accompaniments and a specific order has to be passed by the State Government to determine the inter se priority of the two parties who have filed on the same date under Sec.11(2) of the M.M. (R and D) Act. 2. The State Govt. 2. The State Govt. can have recourse to the provisions of Sec.11(2) of the M.M. (Rand D) Act only if both the applications received on the same day are before it. The M.L. application submitted by Shri Newatia has already been disposed of by the State Govt. vide their order dated 7-4-1977 whereby the mining lease in respect of the area in question has been granted in his favour. This order is defective inasmuch as it has been passed on an improper understanding of the implication of Rule 22(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules. The Central Govt., therefore, in exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Sec.30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, set aside the said order of the State Govt. dated 7-4-77 and direct the State Govt. to consider both the applications of S/Shri Neamunadas Das Sarda and Newatia in the light of the provisions of Sec.11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and pass orders within a period of 120 days." 4. The order of the Central Government was challenged by the respondent 4 by a writ petition filed before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. 365/78(R). That writ application was, however, dismissed on 10th of August, 1982. Respondent 4, thereafter, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8484/82. The Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "As the situation stands, consequent upon the order of the Central Govt. the Bihar State Govt. through its appropriate authority should decide the question of granting mining lease in respect of the plots, involved in this petition within 30 days from today. The application of appellant and respondent 6 alone is to be considered for such grant of mining lease. That in the meantime, the order of the State Government directing the appellant to return the possession is stayed till the decision of the State Government of Bihar on the question of granting mining lease to appellant and respondent 6 and the stay would operate for a period of 30 days. Even the continuation of possession consequent upon stay granted earlier is not to be of any legal consequence while deciding the application on merits. Even the continuation of possession consequent upon stay granted earlier is not to be of any legal consequence while deciding the application on merits. With this observation, petition stands disposed of." The state Government did not pass an order as it was required to do in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 25-10-1982 within the period granted. An application was made for extension of time to pass the aforesaid order and the Supreme Court extended the time for passing such an order till 31-12-82. 5. It appears that certain information was sought for from the petitioner by the State Government on 9-12-1982 and 13-12-1982. The petitioner by his objection dated 13-12-1982 objected to this by saying that the applications had to be disposed of on the basis of the existing materials and there was no justification for the State Government to require the applicants to furnish more particulars or materials. Ultimately the petitioner filed a writ application before the High Court challenging the action of the State Government in requiring it to submit further information, but the said writ application was withdrawn on the 13th of March 1983 since the petitioner had already filed representation before the Director of Mines. The High Court observed that it was expected that while considering the relevant merit of the applicants for grant of mining lease, the representation of the petitioner shall also be considered. According to the petitioner he received the communication of the State Govt. Annexure-8 dated 7-6-1984 on 30th June, 1984 whereby it was communicated to him that the State Government having considered the application of both the applicants in the light of the order of the Central Govt. dated 9-3-78 and the order of the Supreme Court dated 25-10-1982 and in the light of the provisions of S.12(2) of the Act as also S.11(3) thereof, and after a comparative evaluation of the merit of the two applications, it was decided to reject the application of the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid communication of the State Government and filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.1166/84(R) challenging the aforesaid communication. This writ petition was, however, withdrawn since the petitioner was advised to file a revision petition before the Central Government. The petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid communication of the State Government and filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.1166/84(R) challenging the aforesaid communication. This writ petition was, however, withdrawn since the petitioner was advised to file a revision petition before the Central Government. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision petition before the Central Government under R.54 of the Rules but the said revision petition was dismissed by the Central Government by its order dated 24-6-1986. The aforesaid order is Annexure-9 to the writ application. 6. The order of the Central Government rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner is a reasoned order. After noticing the contentions of the parties and the relevant facts, the conclusion was recorded as follows :- "I have carefully gone through the papers on record and considered the submission made by all the parties concerned. As regards the desirability of consideration of the applications of both the parties, no further observations are called for as the Patna High Court in its order dated 10-8-82 had already observed that there had been an error in allowing Shri B.L. Newatias application without disposing of the case of Shri J.D. Sharda. Further, in its order dated 25-10-82, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar Govt. to decide the question of granting mining lease in respect of the area involved after considering the applications of both Shri B.L. Newatia and Shri J.D. Sarda. In accordance with the order of the Supreme Court both the applications were examined and both the applicants were directed vide separate letters No. 1816/M, 1817/M dated 11-12-1982 to furnish the required information and papers. In course of hearing representative of the State Govt. pointed out that Shri Sarda had failed to furnish the Royalty Clearance Certificate for other districts and the khatian and land schedules etc. The State Govt. was within its rights to allow time to the applicants to furnish any incomplete papers. 11. It is not disputed that the State Govt. had erred in granting mining lease to Shri Newatia during the pendency of revision application of Shri Sarda as it related to the same piece of land. However, this issue has already been decided earlier by the Central Govt. and in accordance with this both the applications had been reconsidered by the State Govt. had erred in granting mining lease to Shri Newatia during the pendency of revision application of Shri Sarda as it related to the same piece of land. However, this issue has already been decided earlier by the Central Govt. and in accordance with this both the applications had been reconsidered by the State Govt. The State Government has pointed out that Shri Newatias application had been completed earlier and after the order of the Central Government and the Supreme Court both the applications were considered together in accordance with S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. After which Shri Newatias application was found more suitable on the ground that Shri Newatias was more sound, and that Shri Newatia had set up a mineral based industry whereas Shri Sarda used to supply the minerals to other industries. 12. From the above facts, it is clear that the State Govt. has passed the impugned order carefully considering the relevant facts and circumstances. I see no reason to interfere with this order." The instant writ application was, thereafter, filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the State Government dated 7-6-1984 and the revisional order of the Central Government dated 24-6-1986 Annexures-8 and 9 respectively. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Shri K.P. Verma, has urged before us three main contentions in support of the writ application. He firstly submitted that it was not open to the State Government to pass an order under Ss.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. The order could have been passed only under S.11(2) of the Act since that was the direction of the Central Government. According to the petitioner if the application was to be considered only by reference to S.11(2) of the Act, the State Government could not have asked for any further information from the applicants and had to decide the application on the basis of the materials already before it. Secondly it was urged that the order of the State Government (Annexure-8) was passed on 7th of June, 1984. This order was without jurisdiction since it was contrary to the order of the Supreme Court whereby the time for passing such an order was extended only up to 31st of December, 1982. Thereafter, the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. This order was without jurisdiction since it was contrary to the order of the Supreme Court whereby the time for passing such an order was extended only up to 31st of December, 1982. Thereafter, the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Lastly it was submitted that the petitioner as well as respondent 4 had filed their application for grant of mining leases on 3-1-1974. The application filed by respondent 4 was not complete inasmuch as he had not filed necessary supporting documents as required by R.22 and those documents were filed only on 18-9-1974. The application of respondent 4 not being complete, the same should have been rejected. Alternatively it was submitted that the application of the petitioner having been completed earlier, must be considered to be an application made first in point of time and, therefore, the petitioner had a preferential claim for grant of the mining lease under the provisions of S.11(2) of the Act. 8. So far as the first contention is concerned, on a mere reading of S.11 of the Act, it is untenable. Sub-sec.(2) of S.11 of the Act is in two parts. The first part of that sub-section provides for a situation where two or more persons apply for a mining lease in respect of the same land, though not on the same day. In such a situation it is provided that the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of a lease over the applicant whose application was received later. That part of the sub-section, in my view, has no application to the facts of this case since in the instant case both the applications were filed on the same day. It is the proviso to sub-sec.(2) which applies to a situation where two or more applicants apply on the same day. The proviso to sub-sec.(2) provides that in such a situation, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-sec.(3), the State Government may grant the mining lease to one of the applicants as it may deem fit. Sub-sec.(3) of S.11 provides for the matters which have to be taken into consideration by the State Government while granting the mining lease to one of the applicants who have all applied on the same day. Sub-sec.(3) of S.11 provides for the matters which have to be taken into consideration by the State Government while granting the mining lease to one of the applicants who have all applied on the same day. In the instant case, it was not submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government took into account any extraneous consideration. What was submitted was that it was not open to the State Government to take into account the considerations mentioned in sub-sec.(3) of S.11 since it had to decide the application by reference to S.11(2) alone and not by way of sub-sec.(3) of S.11. This submission overlooks the significant fact that sub-sec.(2) of S.11 itself refers to the grant of a mining lease after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-sec.(3). Thus, where the proviso to sub-sec.(2) of S.11 applies, the matters specified in sub-sec.(3) of S.11 have necessarily to be taken into consideration even while considering an application under S.11(2) of the Act. The applications of applicants applying on the same day have to be dealt with under the proviso to sub-sec.(2) of S.11 which necessarily implies consideration of the matters specified in sub-sec.(3) of S.11. I am, therefore, of the view that in a case where the State Government has to decide the claims of the rival applicants for the grant of mining lease under sub-sec.(2) of S.11 of the Act, it cannot do so without taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-sec.(3) of S.11. This submission must therefore, be rejected. 9. The second submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is also fallacious. The arguments proceeds on the assumption that the State Government had no jurisdiction to make an order granting a mining lease to one of the parties after the time prescribed for the same in terms of the order of the Supreme Court had expired. There is nothing in law, nor is there anything in the order of the Supreme Court, to support the submission that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order granting a mining lease after 31-12-1982 which was the extended date within which the State Government was required to pass an order in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Supreme Court. It may be that the State Government may have been liable for contempt of Court if it did not pass an order granting lease to one of the applicants within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court since that would have amounted to disobedience of the order of the Supreme Court. This, however, did not affect the jurisdiction of the State Government to pass an order even after the time granted by the Supreme Court had run out. The submission was, perhaps, advanced on the basis of the provisions of R.24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which provides that an application for the grant of a mining lease shall be disposed of within 12 months from the date of its receipt and if any application is not so disposed of within the period specified, it shall be deemed to have been refused. Rule 24 applies only to a case where an application for grant of a mining lease had not been disposed of within 12 months from the date of its receipt (at the relevant time within nine months). The specific provisions of sub-rule (3) of R.24 provide for deemed refusal of such an application if the same is not disposed of within the period specified in sub-rule (1). In the instant case, there was no question of disposing of the application within nine months from the date of its receipt. In the absence of any similar provision in respect of matters which are remitted to the State Government for passing appropriate orders by Courts of law indicating the consequence to ensure for non-compliance and in the absence of any such specific direction in the order of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to hold that the State Government had no jurisdiction left to decide the applications after the time granted by the Supreme Court had run out. Learned counsel for the petitioner realizing the further consequence of this argument, namely, that the State Government could not in that event even grant the application made by the petitioner did not press the argument any further. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner realizing the further consequence of this argument, namely, that the State Government could not in that event even grant the application made by the petitioner did not press the argument any further. 10. The last submission of the petitioner, namely, that the petitioner having filed a completed application whereas the application of respondent 4 was defective for want of certain documents, the State Government should have treated the application of the petitioner as having been filed prior to the application of respondent 4, cannot also be upheld. The proviso to sub-sec.(2) of S.11 refers to applications received on the same day. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that both the applications were received on the same day. In this view of the matter, the two applications had to be considered in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.11 of the Act. This was a case for grant of mining lease and not for grant of renewal of a mining lease. Morever, the Central Government while disposing of the revision preferred by the petitioner by its order dated 9-3-1978 (Annexure-3) had decided this question as well in the last part of paragraph 1 of its order. That order of the Central Government was challenged before this Court as also before the Supreme Court and the same was upheld. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to urge this question before this Court in the instant writ application. I, therefore, hold that since both the applications were filed on the same day, they had to be considered in the light of the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.11 and it did not matter that the respondent 4 filed some more documents in support of his application on a later date. The crucial day is the date on which the applications were filed and admittedly in the instant case both the applications were filed on the 3rd of January 1974. All the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner having been rejected, this application must fail and the writ application is accordingly dismissed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.