JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction by way of command upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of grant of prospecting license in favour of the petitioner on the basis of application so made dated 10.05.2007 and 08.07.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under: In pursuance of an advertisement published in the Bihar Gazette dated 06.08.1986 the petitioner submitted his application for grant of mining lease, for the mineral Dolomite and Magnetite confirming to area of 55.22 acres of land situated under mouza Rabda and Hurmur within the district of Palamau along with all the requisites as provided under the provision of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. After making verification and inquiry vide letter no. 481 dated 28.09.2010 the matter of the petitioner was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to respondent no.1 for necessary action. The matter was taken by the respondent no.1 and at the same time vide letter no. 2288 dated 16.12.2010 the petitioner was informed about his willingness as to whether he is interested for the prospecting license with respect to the land in question or not. By the letter dated 16.12.2010 the petitioner vide his application dated 29.03.2011 had expressed his willingness for getting the prospecting license. Initially the petitioner has applied for grant of mining lease for the said mineral Dolomite and Magnetite and due to non-availability of mineral Magnetite under the applied area he had not applied for the prospecting license for the said mineral and upon which the Director Mines sought verification from the petitioner vide his order dated 21.5.2011. The petitioner in reply to letter no. 856 M dated 04.06.2011 addressing to the Addl. Director of Mines Jharkhand, Ranchi rectified his application for obtaining the prospecting license for the Mineral Dolomite Lime, stone, graphite and Magnetite by his application dated 13.06.2011. However, the matter remained pending on the ground of seeking approval of the Minister from 15.6.2011 till 29.7.2011. On 04.08.2012, after examining all the technical points and also on the basis of his office noting the Addl. Director namely Sri Bishwanath Baitha forwarded the matter to the Director for seeking order of the Minister. However, the matter remained pending on the ground of seeking approval of the Minister from 15.6.2011 till 29.7.2011. On 04.08.2012, after examining all the technical points and also on the basis of his office noting the Addl. Director namely Sri Bishwanath Baitha forwarded the matter to the Director for seeking order of the Minister. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the repeated endorsement made by the Addl. Chief secretary-cum- Secretary of Department to the Minister for seeking his approval for grant of prospecting license to the petitioner the Minister without examining the records and ignoring all the office noting of the high ranking officers with regard to approval for grant of prospecting license in favor of the petitioner on baseless and unreasonable ground without application of his mind rather had passed the order. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after the option already given by the petitioner for obtaining the prospecting license for the alleged mineral and even repeated correspondence already made by the respondents vide letter no. 1038 dated 06.05.2013 the Director Mines sought approval with regard to grant of prospecting license from the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. Subsequently vide letter no. 393/M dated 20.06.2013 the Deputy Commissioner sent his approval for granting prospecting license in favour of the petitioner, but even thereafter no heed was paid upon the same and the matter remain pending without any cogent reasons, hence, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner as per the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the competent authority of the State Government has been approached by filing application on 10.05.2007 thereafter on 08.07.2007 for grant of prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner for the mineral dolomite, lime stone, graphite and magnetite. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district has made recommendation to issue license as per the communication dated 20.06.2013 as appended as Annexure-6 but thereafter there is no decision and as such, in the year 2017, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no laches lying on the part of the petitioner since due application for issuance of prospecting license has already been made way back in the year 2007. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no laches lying on the part of the petitioner since due application for issuance of prospecting license has already been made way back in the year 2007. Since then, the authority has not taken any decision on the said application even if the recommendation has been made by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. Hence, it is a fit case where the command is to be issued upon the respondents to issue prospecting license. Therefore, the instant writ petition. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to learned Advocate General has seriously objected the aforesaid prayer by taking the ground in the counter affidavit that after the amendment in the MMDR Act as under Section 10-A(2)(c) which has been given to w.e.f. 12.01.2015, as such, the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered on the basis of the amended provision as contained under Section 10-A since the application so filed by the petitioner will be said to be ineligible due to the lack of accrual of right as per the exception carved out under the provision of Section 10-A, 10-B and 10-C. Hence, according to the learned State counsel, the instant case is fit to be dismissed on account of the fact that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner since has recommended for issuance of prospecting license, hence, the plea is being taken that a right has been accrued. 7. Further submission has been made that merely filing of an application cannot be said to accrue a right in favour of a party since herein, by virtue of the amendment carved out effective from 12.01.2015, the conditions have been provided therein regarding the accrual of right in favour of such party. But, herein, since recommendation is only there, therefore, right has not been accrued and by now, two years’ period has also lapsed, as such, the writ petition has become ineligible in view of the provision of Section 10-A(1) of the Act, 1957. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the pleading made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit of the respondent-State. 9. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the pleading made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit of the respondent-State. 9. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that by filing application for the purpose of issuance of prospecting license which has duly been recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, a right has been accrued even after the amendment having been carved out under the provision of Section 10-A by virtue of the Act 10 of 2015 w.e.f. 12.01.2015. For ready reference, the provision of Section 10-A is being referred as under: “10A. Rights of existing concession holders and applicants.?(1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. (2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015:? (a) applications received under section 11A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,? (i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government; (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause (b) of this subsection except with the previous approval of the Central Government. 10-B. Grant of mining lease in respect of notified minerals through auction.?(1) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to cases covered by section 10A or section 17A or to minerals specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule or to land in respect of which the minerals do not vest in the Government. (2) Where there is inadequate evidence to show the existence of mineral contents of any notified mineral in respect of any area, a State Government may, after obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government, grant a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease for the said notified mineral in such area in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 11. (2) Where there is inadequate evidence to show the existence of mineral contents of any notified mineral in respect of any area, a State Government may, after obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government, grant a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease for the said notified mineral in such area in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 11. (3) In areas where the existence of mineral contents of any notified mineral is established in the manner prescribed by the Central Government, the State Government shall notify such areas for grant of mining leases for such notified mineral, the terms and conditions subject to which such mining leases shall be granted, and any other relevant conditions, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (4) For the purpose of granting a mining lease in respect of any notified mineral in such notified area, the State Government shall select, through auction by a method of competitive bidding, including e-auction, an applicant who fulfils the eligibility conditions as specified in this Act. (5) The Central Government shall prescribe the terms and conditions, and procedure, subject to which the auction shall be conducted, including the bidding parameters for the selection, which may include a share in the production of the mineral, or any payment linked to the royalty payable, or any other relevant parameter, or any combination or modification of them. (6) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-section (5), the Central Government shall, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so, prescribe terms and conditions, procedure and bidding parameters in respect of categories of minerals, size and area of mineral deposits and a State or States, subject to which the auction shall be conducted: Provided that the terms and conditions may include the reservation of any particular mine or mines for a particular end-use and subject to such condition which allow only such eligible end users to participate in the auction. (7) The State Government shall grant a mining lease to an applicant selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in this section in respect of such notified mineral in any notified area. (7) The State Government shall grant a mining lease to an applicant selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in this section in respect of such notified mineral in any notified area. 10-C. Grant of non-exclusive reconnaissance permits.?(1) Non-exclusive reconnaissance permits may be granted in respect of any notified mineral or non-notified mineral or a group of specified minerals, other than minerals specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) The holder of such non-exclusive reconnaissance permit shall not be entitled to make any claim for the grant of any prospecting licence-cum-mining lease or a mining lease.” 10. It is evident from the provision of Section 10-A(1), whereby and whereunder, the provision has been made that all applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. Sub-section (2) thereof starts with non-obstante clause by carving out exception not to treat such application even after application has been received from the date of commencement of the amended act of 2015, i.e., condition stipulated therein is (a) applications received under section 11A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be. 11. Thus, it is evident from the provision of Section 10-A(2)(b) that the ineligibility clause as under Section 10-A(1) will not be applicable if a reconnaissance permit or prospecting license has been issued prior to the amended act of 2015. 11. Thus, it is evident from the provision of Section 10-A(2)(b) that the ineligibility clause as under Section 10-A(1) will not be applicable if a reconnaissance permit or prospecting license has been issued prior to the amended act of 2015. Clause (c) of Section 10-A(2) thereof stipulates two conditions for the purpose of issuance of license, i.e., where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act. 12. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that in two eventualities, i.e., previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent has been issued prior to the amended act of 2015, then, the lease is to be granted within two years subject to fulfilment of the conditions as stipulated either previous approval of letter of intent, as the case may be. 13. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 contains provision conferring power upon the State Government for issuance of mining prospecting license or mining lease, meaning thereby, the State Government is only competent to issue prospecting license, as such, as has been stipulated under Section 10-A(2)(c), prior approval which is explicitly clear that approval for grant of mining lease is to be issued by the State Government in pursuance of the provision as contained under Section 5(1) of the Amended Act, 2015. 14. This Court, after discussing the legal position and coming back to the factual aspect, has found that none of the conditions is available with the petitioner which has been stipulated either under Section 10-A(2)(a) or 10-A(2)(b) or 10-A(2)(c) rather the case of the petitioner is based upon the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. 15. 14. This Court, after discussing the legal position and coming back to the factual aspect, has found that none of the conditions is available with the petitioner which has been stipulated either under Section 10-A(2)(a) or 10-A(2)(b) or 10-A(2)(c) rather the case of the petitioner is based upon the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. 15. Since the recommendation cannot be said to be either approval of the State Government or the letter of intent said to be issued on behalf of the State, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is not coming under the fold of Section 10-A(2) rather, according to our considered view, the case of the writ petitioner is coming under the purview of Section 10-A(1). Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner become ineligible in view of the provision as under Section 10-A(1) since the application has been filed prior to amendment and it is not a case of exception as carved out either under Section 10-A(2)(a) or 10-A(2)(b) or 10-A(2)(c). 16. The consideration of the case of one or the other under Section 10-A(2) is only to be considered if right has been accrued as under Section10-A(2)(a), 10-A(2)(b), 10-A(2)(c). Such stipulation regarding the right said to be created in favour of the applicant can only be considered for grant of prospecting or lease license in favour of the applicant, meaning thereby, the said stipulation in the statute has been made in a case of accrual of right under either of the conditions as contained under Section10-A(2)(a), 10-A(2)(b), 10-A(2)(c). The accrual of right is the paramount consideration for direction upon the State to issue lease license or prospecting license. The accrual of right/vested right has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case rendered in MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh [ (2014) 13 SCC 583 ] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13, which read as under: “11. The word “vested” is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as: “Vested.—fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. The word “vested” is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as: “Vested.—fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute ‘vested rights’.” 12. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, “vested” is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. 13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed.” 17. This Court considering the aforesaid interpretation of the accrued right or vested right and coming to the factual aspect herein that the basis of the claim is solely on the recommendation made by the Deputy Commssioner which cannot be construed to be accrual of right as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.