Judgment (Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12769 of 2006, inter alia, quashing demand notices, thereby holding that the Respondent was liable to pay extra royalty for the mineral extracted by him, as also the entire certificate proceeding vide Certificate Case No. 1/2005-06 as being without jurisdiction. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement for settlement of stone plots for a period of five years, the respondent applied and participated in the auction and was awarded four leases for Rs. 22,00,000/-, Rs. 21,01,500/-, Rs. 35,00,500/- and Rs. 2,44,000/- respectively. 3. It appears that pursuant to an order as contained in Memo No. 2418/M dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure-1) issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna, the appellants raised demands for depositing additional amounts of royalty to the tune of Rs.20,45,402/-, Rs.28,43,278/-, Rs. 3,65,979/- and Rs. 8,76,888/- by letters dated 6.7.2005 (Annexure-2 series). 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the demands have rightly been raised in view of the earlier Memo No. 2831/M dated 14.12.2002 of the Mines Department (Annexure-3) according to which there was no bar against demanding additional amounts of royalty. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge had missed to take note of the same while disposing of the writ petition, though the same had been brought on record in the shape of Annexure-‘A' to the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contended that the memo of 2002 relied upon by the appellant is not applicable at all and denies his liability towards additional royalty in view of the fundamental fact that each of the four leases had been settled for amounts which were far in excess of the minimum reserve. The demands in• question were also challenged on the ground that no prior notice had been served before raising of the demands. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the materials on record. It appears that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the memo no. 2418/M dated 29.11.2004 and has also discussed the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, and Rule 26(4) in particular. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the materials on record. It appears that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the memo no. 2418/M dated 29.11.2004 and has also discussed the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, and Rule 26(4) in particular. On a perusal of the said order, however, it does indeed appear that the earlier memo dated 14.12.2002 has not been considered nor its effect in the matter of charging of additional amount of royalty. 7. We find from the demand notices dated 6.7.2005 (Annexure-2 series) issued by the Appellant No. 5 that no basis what-soever for the amount of demands raised nor any opportunity had been granted before the demands were raised against the respondent. The issue relating to the respondent's very denial of liability for additional royalty in view of the fact that the settlement of leases were for amounts in excess of the minimum reserve, has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 8. In the above view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter require to be remanded to the appellant no. 5 for issuance of notices to the respondent to answer against levy of the additional royalty. The matter shall be decided afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside and the L.P.A. stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.