Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Mines Commissioner, dated 6.2.1999 in Rev. Case No. 36 of 1999, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the order of the District Magistrate Panta, dated 4.2.1999, contained in Annexure-10 was set aside. A prayer has also been made to quash the order of the same authority, dated 10.2.1999, contained in Annexure-2, whereby the order issued in Memo No. III, dated 8.2.1999 by the Assistant Mining Officer, as contained in Annexure-13, was stayed holding that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make a fresh settlement of the sand ghats in favour of the petitioner-Society with a direction that the authorities would ensure that no disturbance is created to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (in short Corporation) which had taken settlement of the concerned ghats. 2. Since what has happened in this case must open the eyes both of the Government as well as the people of large, therefore, before turning to the merits of submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be advantageous to refer some of the facts of this case in brief. 3. It would appear from the materials brought on record that since the year 1992, the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation has been handling the sand ghats after taking settlement from time to time either on the basis of a preferential right under Rule 12 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (in short the Rules) or being the highest bidder, at the time of settlement. With respect to the settlement for the year 1999, the District Magistrate, Patna, published a tender notice on 13.11.1998 in Hindustan, a Hindi daily for settlement of the 14 sand ghats of the Sone river in the Patna district. Though process for action took place in three phases on 23.11.1998, 31.12.1998 and 4.1.1999, but no bidder participated except the respondent Corporation. Therefore, having noticed that the Corporation was the only highest boatr and has offered-21% above the settlement amount of the year 1998, the District Magistrate, Patna by his order dated 18.1.1999 granted settlement in respect of all the ghats including Rampur Ghogar and Suar Marwa, Rampur Diara, which would be evident from the letter of the Assistant Mining Officer, contained in Annexure-5. It further appears that the settlement in question was also approved by the Mines Commissioner on 27.1.1999 holding that the offer of the Corporation was much above the reserve jama fixed by the Government. 4. In the meantime, a notice was published on behalf of the respondent-Corporation on 13.1.1999 inviting offers from the boat holders, etc. to carry sand from the bed of the river to the adjoining ghats. The assistant Mining Officer on 16.1.1999 issued a show-cause notice against the respondent-Corporation as to why without taking the approval of the Government, such offers were invited. It was further indicated in case of unsatisfactory reply, steps can be taken to cancel such advertisement. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent-Corporation having noticed the objection raised by the Assistant Mining Officer published a notice in the daily newspaper on 17.1.1999 cancelling the notice dated 13.1.1999 and an intimation to this effect was also given to the Assistant Mining Officer by the Project Officer of the Co-operative vide the letter dated 18.1.1999, contained in Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. But as would appear from the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.2,1999 contained in Annexure-10, ignoring the notice dated 17.1.1999 published in the newspaper, as well as intimation of the Co-operative cancelled the settlement of two sand ghats, namely, Rampur Ghagar and Suar Marwa Rampur Diara, and on 8.2.1999 issued another order for settlement of these two ghats in favour of the petitioner-Society at Rs. 19.50 lacs and 11.969 lacs, respectively which would be evident from the letter of the Assistant Mines Officer, contained in Annexure-11. 5. The respondent-Corporation feeling aggrieved by the impugned steps of the District Magistrate, made an application before the Mines Commissioner for an appropriate order as well as for stay of the settlement which was made in favour of the petitioner-Society. It would appear from the order contained in Annexure-2, dated 10.2.1999, the Mines Commissioner having appreciated that the previous order of the District Magistrate, dated 4.2.1999 was already set aside and the petitioner society had not even participated at the auction, stayed the order of the District Magistrate, dated 8.2.1999 whereby a fresh settlement was made in favour of the petitioner-Society and also called upon the District Magistrate and the Assistant Mines Officer to submit a report with regard to the grievance of the respondent-Corporation fixing 19.2.1999, a date for further hearing. But the petitioner-Society in the meantime, moved the present writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the order of the Mines Commissioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction since the District Magistrate after cancelling the settlement of the respondent-Corporation, took steps for settlement in favour of the petitioners society in terms the provisions as enumerated under Rule 11(c) of the Rules, which gives a preferential right to a Co-operative-Society to take settlement of sand ghats. He further contended since the respondent-Corporation while inviting tenders vide notice published on 13.1.1999 had violated the terms of settlement because no prior approval of the competent authority was obtained, the District Magistrate was fully justified while cancelling the settlement. 7. He next contended that apart from what has been noticed above, even from a bare reference to different letters of the Assistant Mining Officer, it would appear that the respondent-Corporation was also in huge arrears of the Government revenue for the settlement of the year 1996 and had also failed to deposit half of the settlement amount for the present year as required in terms of the tender notice and order passed by the District Magistrate. Therefore, on this ground also the District Magistrate had no option but to cancel the settlement. 8. In this regard, he also referred to the proviso to Rule 11(F) of the Rules to show that any default of payment of such amount shall at once result in cancellation of the settlement and the Collector shall be free to settle the area do novo in accordance with the Rules 11-A, 11-C and 11-D. Thus, having regard to such a statutory requirement, there will be nothing wrong if after cancellation of the settlement of the respondent Corporation, the District Magistrate took a decision to settle such ghats in favour of the petitioner in terms of Rule 11-C of the rules. Apart from the facts noticed above, learned Counsel also alleged that cancellation of notice dated 13.1.1999 by publishing another notice in the newspaper on 17.1.1999 was in fact a fraud on the part of the Corporation to mislead the authorities. Because from a bare reference to the latter issued by Project Officer dated 31.1.1999, contained in Annexure-9, it would appear that with respect to Rampur Ghoghar Sand ghat, settlement made with one Vijay Kumar Singh was extended up to 15.2.1999. Because from a bare reference to the latter issued by Project Officer dated 31.1.1999, contained in Annexure-9, it would appear that with respect to Rampur Ghoghar Sand ghat, settlement made with one Vijay Kumar Singh was extended up to 15.2.1999. Therefore, this was certainly a breach of the terms of settlement. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and the State, contended since the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.2.1999 was already set aside by the Mines Commissioner on 6.2.1999, she had no jurisdiction to interfere with the settlement of the Corporation and to take steps for fresh settlement on 8.2.1999 in favour of the petitioner-Society. 10. It was pointed out that admittedly, the petitioner society was neither registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 nor had ever participated at the time of auction. In fact as would appear from the registration certificate contained in Annexure-F to the counter-affidavit, for the first time on 31.12.1998, the society got registration and on 2.2.1999 a secret offer of the higher rate was given to the District Magistrate whereas final settlement in favour of the respondent-Corporation had already taken place on 18.1.1999. 11. Question thus emerges for consideration whether after the order of the Mines Commissioner dated 6.2.1999 contained in Annexure 1, the District Magistrate had any jurisdiction to interfere with the settlement of the respondent-Corporation and to make a fresh settlement on 8.2.1999 in favour of the petitioner-Society. It would be also relevant to consider whether the petitioner-Society claiming preference under Rule 11-C even without being registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act until date of final settlement, as also without participating at the time of auction, will be entitled for a settlement ignoring all the mandatory procedures enumerated at different stages under Rules 9 to 11-C of Chapter-Ill of the Rules. 12. A question has further cropped up during the hearing of this application whether registration of the petitioner-society made by the Joint Registrar under the provisions of the Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996, can be held to be a registration under the Bihar & Orrissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, for the purpose of grant of preference in such settlement as required under Rule 11-C of the Rules. 13. 13. In my view, having regard to the facts as discussed above, I need not endeavour much to adjudicate whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to record a fresh order for settlement in favour of the petitioners-Society. Because undisputedly, on 6.2.1999 the Mines Commissioner has set aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.2.1999 as a result of which the settlement of the respondent-Corporation had already come into effect. Therefore, in such a circumstance, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make a fresh settlement. On behalf of the writ petitioner, however, and attempt has been made to justify the order of the District Magistrate on a plea that there was no communication of the Commissioners order to the District Magistrate until the date of fresh settlement. But in my view, such a plea has to be rejected outright. Because it is really unbelievable that the District Magistrate while taking a decision for fresh settlement on 8.2.1999 had no knowledge about the order of the Mines Commissioner which was passed as back as on 6.2.1999 nor there is settlement on his behalf or on behalf of Government. 14. Turning to the other aspect regarding preferential claim of the petitioners-Society under Rule 11-C of the Rules, in my view, from a bare reference to the facts stated above, it has been established that until the date of final settlement i.e. 8.1.1999 no efforts whatsoever was made nor any body had appeared on behalf of the society at the time of auction. In fact, it was for the first time on 2.2.1999 a secret offer was made on behalf of the Society to the District Magistrate for settlement. 15. In this connection, it would also be appropriate to notice certain relevant rules contained in Chapter III of the Rules commencing from Rule 9, which provides for a desirous person to make an application for grant of mining lease. As per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, an applicant is required to make application in Form A together with a few of Rs. 2,000.00 and a number of relevant documents like certificates, affidavit and declarations as specified in various sub-rules of Rule 9. Sub-rule (9) makes it mandatory on the competent officer to reject the applications straightway in case they are not in accordance with the provisions prescribed therein. 2,000.00 and a number of relevant documents like certificates, affidavit and declarations as specified in various sub-rules of Rule 9. Sub-rule (9) makes it mandatory on the competent officer to reject the applications straightway in case they are not in accordance with the provisions prescribed therein. Rule 10 is for acknowledgment of applications whereas Rule 11 is for disposal of the applications for mining leases. By an amendment brought with effect from 14.1. 1985, Rule 11-A was incorporated in this chapter. The object thereof is to put sand in a special category and to make special provisions for settlement as mining mineral. As per Rule 11-A, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the settlement of sand as mining mineral will be done by public auction by the Collector to the highest bidder on annual basis. The last explanation to this sub-rule provides that anything contained herein before in this rule shall not prevent the Collector from exercising his power under Rule 9 in cases covered by Rule 12(i) hereinafter. 16. Rule 12 provides some preferential right to Government departments, Public Sector Undertakings and Local Bodies. It would be evident from the proviso the Rule 11-A that only case in which the settlement of sand ghats can be made without holding a public auction and on the basis of an application made by the desirous person would be in favour of the Government departments, Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies and Co-operative Societies subject to the condition of self-consumption and in favour of the Co-operative Societies of which all the share-holders belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 17. On 16.2.1989 by a fresh amendment, Rule 11-C was added to Chapter III under which the petitioners-society is claiming reference. It. says that a duly registered Co-operative-Society under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, will claim preference under this provision. But in view of the provisions as incorporated under Rule 11-A, which enjoins that the settlement of sand ghats will be made to the highest bidder in public action, only exception can be claimed under Rule 12. The Co-operative Society, as contained in rule 11-C, can therefore, claim preference, if any, subject to due observance of the necessary formalities, as required under Rules 9 to 11-A. 18. The Co-operative Society, as contained in rule 11-C, can therefore, claim preference, if any, subject to due observance of the necessary formalities, as required under Rules 9 to 11-A. 18. Undisputedly, in the case before me, since the petitioners-Society made offer for the first time on 2.2.1999 whereas the settlement had finally taken place in favour of the respondent-Corporation on 18.1.1999, it was not open to the District Magistrate to make a fresh settlement while taking aid of Rule 11-C without any fresh advertisement for auction. 19. Apart from what has been noticed above, it would appear from the certificate of registration dated 31.12.1998 contained in Annexure-F, that the petitioner-Society was not registered under the Bihar & Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 rather it has got registration under the Bihar Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996. As per Rule 11-C, only a society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act would be entitled to get preference for settlement of minor mineral under Rule 11-A. No material or any provision of law was produced on behalf of the petitioners-society to state that a cooperative society getting registration under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 is also entitled to have preferential right for settlement in terms of Rule 11-C of the Rules. 20. Learned Counsel, however, referring to the provisions of the Secs. 26 and 27 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, contended that until an amendment or insertion of similar provision to grant benefits to the Co-operative Societies registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 under Rule 11-C of the Rules, the benefits, which are presently available to a registered society under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative societies Act has to be extended to the Societies registered under the former Act. 21. In my view, from a bare reference to the provisions referred to above, it would appear that neither the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act has been repealed nor enacted so as to incorporate Rule 11 -C of the Rules. Similar is the effect of the insertion of Rule 11-C under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules by S.O. 5572 M dated 18.10.1995 whereas the Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 was introduced in the year 1996. Similar is the effect of the insertion of Rule 11-C under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules by S.O. 5572 M dated 18.10.1995 whereas the Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 was introduced in the year 1996. Therefore, unless and until, there is a fresh amendment under Rule 11-C of the Rules to extend the benefits to the Co-operative societies registered under the Bihar Self-Supporting Cooperative societies Act, 1996, it would not be open to extend such benefits to the petitioners-Society. 22. Learned Counsel then contended since in view of the facts noticed above at the time of settlement the respondent-Corporation was in huge arrears of the amount of settlement for the year 1996, in case of quashing the order of the District Magistrate, dated 4.2.1999, or the order dated 8.2.1999 it would give rise to another illegal order whereby the settlement was made in favour of the respondent-Corporation. To strengthen his proposition, the learned Counsel also place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty V/s. The Internation Airport Authority of India and Ors. 1979 SC 1628, as also the decisions of this Court in the cases of Hari Prasad Mandal and Ors. V/s. Additional Collector, Monghyr and Ors. 1978 BBCJ 575 and Vijay Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (1) PLJR 99. 23. In may view, there cannot be any dispute with such a proposition. 1979 SC 1628, as also the decisions of this Court in the cases of Hari Prasad Mandal and Ors. V/s. Additional Collector, Monghyr and Ors. 1978 BBCJ 575 and Vijay Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (1) PLJR 99. 23. In may view, there cannot be any dispute with such a proposition. But in the background of the facts or this case, such a view may not at all be applicable at least for the following reasons-(a) the order of the Collector dated 8.2.1999 for settlement in favour or the petitioners-society was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction since after the order or the Mines Commissioner dated 8.2.1999, it was not open to her to interfere with the settlement which had taken place in favour of the respondent-Corporation; (b) the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.2.1999 regarding cancellation of settlement of the respondent-Corporation was not on a ground that it had defaulted in making payment of the dues of the year 1996; rather it was on exclusive ground of the publication of notice on 13.1.1999; (c) the petitioners-Society not being registered, as required under Rule 11-C of the Rules until the date or final settlement nor bad appeared on the dates or public auction, was not entitled for any preferential claim for settlement; (d) the ground for cancellation of settlement of the respondent corporation as alleged by the District Magistrate in her order dated 4.2.1999 was found to be non est since by publishing a notice on 17.1.1999, the advertisement published on 13.1.1999 was already withdrawn by the corporation, hence there was no such breach of the terms of the settlement on the day the order for cancellation was passed; (e) any order or application on behalf of the petitioners-society prior to 31.12.1998 when it got registration, will not entitle such a society to claim preference under Rule 11-C and lastly (f) the respondent-Corporation has already deposited Rs. 1.25 crores and odd as against the bid amount or Rs. 1.61 crores as directed by the State Government vide letter No. 18 dated 15.1.1999 (Annexure G). 24. No doubt to put into focus on behalf of the petitioners, it was highlighted that offer on which the petitioners society got settlement on 8.2.1999 was higher than the amount offered by the respondent-Corporation. 1.61 crores as directed by the State Government vide letter No. 18 dated 15.1.1999 (Annexure G). 24. No doubt to put into focus on behalf of the petitioners, it was highlighted that offer on which the petitioners society got settlement on 8.2.1999 was higher than the amount offered by the respondent-Corporation. Though I have already deprecated such submission by cogent reasons, but before parting with this case, it must be reminded that having a back-door entry to give a minor rise in the bid amount will not only be unfair, rather illegal and without jurisdiction. I may usefully quote a passage from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case or Ram and Shyam Co. V/s. States or Haryana and Ors. -- at paragraph 13, as below: ...A unilateral offer, secretly made, nor correlated to any reserved price made by the fourth respondent after making false statement in the letter was accepted without giving any opportunity to the appellant either to raise the bid or to point out the falcity of the allegations made by the fourth respondent in the letter as also the inadequacy of his bid. The appellant suffered an unfair treatment by the State in discharging its administrative functions thereby violating the fundamental principle of fair play in action. When he gave the highest bid, he could not have been expected to raise his own bid in the absence of a competitor. In my view, the above-quoted passage will itself be enough to deprecate what has been done in this case by the District Magistrate. 25 I, therefore, taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of this case discussed above, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Mines Commissioner. Hence, the writ application as well as I.A. 2262 of 1999 are dismissed as devoid of any merit.