JUDGEMENT 1. In all the aforesaid five cases, common issues are involved and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. All the abovenamed petitioners have filed their respective writ petitions challenging orders of the Collector, Nawada cancelling the leases of the petitioners as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Mines, Govt, of Bihar, Patna dismissing the revisions of the petitioners and affirming the orders of the Collector and also for declaration that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the Collector on the basis of letter of the Additional Secretary, Mines & Geology, Govt, of Bihar, Patna with respect to the grant of mining lease to the petitioners were absolutely without jurisdiction and were arbitrary, mala fide and were liable to be quashed and also for declaration that the petitioners or their transferors were validly granted mining lease in the year 2001 for a period of ten years in exercise of powers under Rule 22 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity) and as such the said mining leases could not have been legally cancelled before the expiry of the aforesaid period of leases and for further declaration that the mining leases of the petitioners were granted prior to the change in the procedure for grant/renewal of lease and such change in the procedure was not applicable in relation to the cases of the petitioners and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue the mining of.minor minerals for the remaining period of lease. 3. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record it is quite apparent that notices were published in the District Gazette of Nawada in the year 2001 under the authority of the Collector, Nawada in terms of Rule 22 of the Rules mentioning that the earlier leases having been cancelled, the respective lands were available for re-leasing and as such people were invited to apply for the same. In response to the said notice, the petitioners of.CWJC No. 268 of 2008, CWJC No. 241 of 2010, CWJC No. 465 of 2010 and CWJC No. 526 of 2010 filed their respective applications within the period prescribed for grant of fresh leases. In response to the said notice, the petitioners of.CWJC No. 268 of 2008, CWJC No. 241 of 2010, CWJC No. 465 of 2010 and CWJC No. 526 of 2010 filed their respective applications within the period prescribed for grant of fresh leases. However, the petitioner of CWJC No. 493 of 2010 being the earlier lessee applied for renewal of his lease. Finally all the said applications were allowed by the authorities and mining leases for the respective areas were granted to them by the Collector, Nawada on 31.3.2001, 27.4.2001, 7.4.2001 and 9.4.2001 respectively. The said orders of the Collector are annexed to the respective writ petitions. Since then the petitioners are continuing with mining on their respective lands strictly in accordance with the terms of the lease. 4. It further transpires that on 30.3.2007 the Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Govt, of Bihar, Patna sent a letter to the Collector, Nawada informing that Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 had been amended on 23.3.2001 vide Bihar Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment).Rules, 2001 adding Rules 9A, 22A and 52 by which it had been provided that no mining lease shall be renewed and all the existing mining leases shall be allowed to continue only till the completion of the period of lease and in future all mining settlements shall be made by auction. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the Department had come to know that the provisions of amended Rules were being violated and hence an inquiry should be made and steps should be taken for cancellation of those mining leases which were granted after the amendment of the Rule on 23.3.2001, violating its aforesaid provisions. 5. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Department, the Collector, Nawada initiated proceedings against the petitioners and found that the amendment dated 23.3.2001 was notified vide Notification No. 12/B.M.-70/2/97.KHAND-II-702/M dated 17.4.2001 and although orders for grant of mining leases to the petitioners were passed between 23.3.2001 and 17.4.2001, but leases to the petitioners were executed after 17.4.2001, hence the said leases being in violation of Rule 9A of the amended Rules, they were cancelled vide orders dated 22.5.2007. Against the said orders of the Collector, the petitioners filed their respective revisions before the Commissioner of Mines, Govt, of Bihar, Patna but he dismissed the said revisions holding that the leases granted/renewed to the petitioners were in contravention of the Rules and therefore, in view of Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the said leases granted/renewed were void, but to protect the petitioners from serious legal consequences of the said cancellation of leases it was clarified that for the period during which the petitioners had worked, the leases shall be treated as valid. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the Rules were amended on 23.3.2001 vide Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 by which Rule 9A and 52 were added out of which Rules 9A provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Government may by notification in the official Gazette direct that any mineral may be leased out or settled by public auction in the manner prescribed in Rule 52. The newly added Rule 52 provided that settlement of land for mining leases should be done by public auction for which detailed procedure was prescribed. Admittedly, the said amended Rules were duly notified by the Government on 17.4.2001. 7. Furthermore, from the undisputed claim of the parties, it is clear that the Collector, Nawada accepted the applications of the petitioners for grant/renewal of the lease before the date of notification, i.e. 17.4.2001, but the mining leases were executed in their favour by the authorities concerned much after the notification of the amended Rules on 17.4.2001. It is also clear that in view of the aforesaid amended Rules such leases were strictly prohibited and the settlements of leases were directed to be done through public auction. Section 19 of the Act specifically provided that any prospecting licence or mining lease renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. 8. In the instant case, the vires of the aforesaid amendment in the Rules are not under challenge. Section 19 of the Act specifically provided that any prospecting licence or mining lease renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. 8. In the instant case, the vires of the aforesaid amendment in the Rules are not under challenge. Furthermore, the amendment in the Rules are not subsequent to the grant of lease, rather the leases were granted much after the amendment of the Rules, but were violative of the said provisions which had been brought by amendment earlier. \n the said circumstances, the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of M/s Gujarat Pottery Works Private Ltd. V/s. B.P.Sood and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 964, in case of State of Jharkhand and others V/s. Voltas Ltd., East Singhbhum, reported in 2007(4) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 242 as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(1) P.L.J.R. 350 , are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Considering the admitted facts and position in taw, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned and accordingly all these writ petitions are dismissed.