Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned Special P.P. for the Mines. 2. The writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:— (i) for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to extend the lease term by 30 days in accordance with Clause 5 Part IX of the Agreement dated 04.04.2020 or alternatively to grant proportionate remission in royalty for 30 days, in lieu of restriction Imposed upon mining activity during the COVID 19 pandemic from 23.03.2020 till 20.04.2020; (ii) this Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the action of the Respondent Authorities in granting remission in royalty to sand mining lease holders in the state of Bihar for the period during which mining activity was restricted on account of COVID 19 lockdown, but not granting the same benefit to the Petitioner, is completely illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and non-est in the eyes of law; (iii) this Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the action of the Respondent Authorities in this matter is fraught with arbitrariness on account of the fact that the Respondent have adopted a pick and choose method in granting remission in royalty to different mining lease holders; (iv) this Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that in light of the Clause 5 Part IX of the Agreement dated 04.04.2020, the petitioner is entitled for extension of lease period by 30 days in lieu of restriction imposed upon mining activity during the COVID 19 pandemic from 23.03.2020 till 20.04.2020; (v) this Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner is an act of unreasonableness and arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents; 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has straightaway taken this Court to the lease agreement between the State Government and the petitioner firm dated 06.04.2016 by which pursuant to the application made by the petitioner firm, the tracts of land situated at Mauja Sadhil, Circle Madanpur in the district of Aurangabad (Khata 28, Thana 839, Plot 1168 (Part), Block No. 1 containing of an area of 13.32 acres) was settled for a period of five years. He has further taken this Court to Part 5 of the said agreement which deals with the rent and royalty reserved by the lease. 4. He has further taken this Court to Part 5 of the said agreement which deals with the rent and royalty reserved by the lease. 4. The paragraph 1 of the said Part 5 read as follows: “Rent and royalties reserved by this Lease. 1. Rate and mode of payment of auctioned amount- The lessee shall pay the total auctioned lease amount of Rs 21.51 Cores for five years. The lessee shall pay 20% of the auctioned amount by 31st January every year. The lessee has already paid the 1st installment i.e 20% of the auctioned amount Rs 4.30 Cores. The bid amount shall be deposited in yearly basis in equal installments and the installment shall be deposited before 31st January as given below— 2nd installment- before 31st January 2017 3rd installment- before 31st January 2018 4th installment- before 31st January 2019 5th Installment- before 31st January 2020” 5. It is his submission that the petitioner firm diligently paid all the installments right from 2016 to 2020 and the lease period was for the period 2016 to 2021. 6. He further took this Court to a letter issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi addressed to all the Principals Secretaries/Directors/ Commissioners of the State Government dated 05.05.2020 and the same is incorporated here-in-below for the proper appreciation. “F.No. 16/53/2020-M.VI Government of India Ministry of Mines Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Pd. Road, New Delhi-110001 Dated:- 5th May, 2020 To The Principal Secretaries/Directors/Commissioners of the State Governments (As per list attached) Sub:—Invocation of force majeure clause in the Mineral Development and Production Agreement signed by the lessees and the State Governments. Sir, I am directed to bring your kind notice about the unprecedented situation caused in the country due to country wide lock-down done due to the cavid-19 pandemic. The mineral industry has brought to the attention of this Ministry about the adverse impact of restrictions imposed on travel/transportation on mineral production and demand. 2. There is a demand from the industries to invoke the force majure clause of Mineral Development and Production Agreement and to re- assess the quantity of Mineral to be produced considering the ground realities. The production can be increased when the situation normalizes. 3. The said request of the industry appears considerable in the present situation. 2. There is a demand from the industries to invoke the force majure clause of Mineral Development and Production Agreement and to re- assess the quantity of Mineral to be produced considering the ground realities. The production can be increased when the situation normalizes. 3. The said request of the industry appears considerable in the present situation. It is therefore suggested to consider such request of the leaseholders taking into account the ground realities and give relaxation accordingly. Yours faithfully, (Veens K-Dermal) Director 7. Mr. Suraj Samdarshi submits that the Central Government suggested the State Government to take into account the Covid-19 pandemic/ground realities and accordingly give relaxation to the affected parties. 8. It is his next submission that both the sand and the stone comes under Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 (henceforth for short ‘ the Rules, 2019) the State Government extended the said benefit in case of the sand minings which reflects from the Memo No. 2721 dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). 9. 9. The Memo No. 2721 read as follows:— fcgkj ljdkj [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx la[;k&2&,eŒ,eŒ¼ckŒ½&35@20---------@,eŒ iVuk] fnukad------------------------ Ás"kd] v:.k Ádk'k] HkkŒÁŒlaŒ fo'ks"k lfpo≶ funs'kdA lsok esa] lekgrkZ] iVuk@Hkkstiqj@lkj.k@uoknk@vjoy@ck¡dk@csfr;k@eèksiqjk@fd'kuxat@jksgrkl@vkSjaxkckn@x;k@oS'kkyh@cDljA fo"k;%& vofèk foLrkj ds lacaèk esaA Álax%& foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&2646] fnukad&14-09-2020 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d lacaèk esa vki voxr gSa fd foHkkxh; vfèklwpuk la[;k&2646@,eŒ fnukad&14-09-2020 }kjk fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voSèk [kuu ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e&77¼2½ ds rgr fnukad 31-10-2020 dks lekIr gks jgh ckyw canksoLrh vofèk foLrkj dks dksfoM&19 ds dkj.k ckyw?kkV lapkyu can jgus rFkk uo cankscLr ckyw?kkVksa ds fy, i;kZoj.kh; Lohd`fr ÁkIr gksus esa foyEcrk ds dkj.k fnukad 31-12-2020 vFkok u;s ckyw cankscLrèkkfj;ksa dks i;kZoj.kh; Lohd`fr mijkar dk;kZns'k fuxZr djus dh frfFk tks igys gks] rd vofèk foLrkj xr o"kZ ds cankscLrh jkf'k ij 50 Áfr'kr o`f} ds lkFk Lohd`fr nh xbZ gSA rn~yksd esa iapkax o"kZ 2019 dh cankscLrh jkf'k esa 50 Áfr'kr dh o`f} djrs gq, ekg uoEcj&fnlEcj] 2020 rd nks ekg dh lekuqikfrd jkf'k ¼dksfoM&19 ds dkj.k 43 fnuksa rd ckyw?kkVksa ds lapkyu can jgus dh fLFkfr esa can vofèk dh jkf'k lek;ksftr djrs gq,½ dks 30 flrEcj] 2020 rd ÁkIr fd;k tk;A 2- cankscLrh vofèk ds foLrkj ds Øe esa ;g vko';d gS fd foLrkfjr vofèk ds fy, cankscLrèkkjh ls fuèkkZfjr Ái= esa ,djkjukek Hkh djk fy;k tk,A lkFk gh cankscLrèkkjh ls ns; fdLr ds lkFk vU; enksa esa fu;ekuqlkj DMF, Applicable GST, INCOME TAX bR;kfn gsrq Hkqxrs; jkf'k Hkh ÁkIr dj fy;k tk,A fo'oklHkktu gLrk{kj@& fo'ks"k lfpo≶&funs'kd Kkikad--------------@,eŒ iVuk] fnukad------- Áfrfyfi%& lHkh lacafèkr mifuns'kd@lHkh lacafèkr lgk;d funs'kd@lHkh lacafèkr [kfut fodkl inkfèkdkjh@lHkh lacafèkr [kku fujh{kd dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& fo'ks"k lfpo≶&funs'kd Kkikad&2721--------@,eŒ iVuk] fnukad 21-09-2020 Áfrfyfi%& foHkkxh; ihŒ,eŒ;wŒ@vkbZŒVhŒ eSustj [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA fo'ks"k lfpo≶&funs'kd 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm also suffered due to the CovidPatna 19 in as much as pursuant to the Memo No. 1303 dated 23.03.2020 issued by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna all the mining activities in the State came to stand still 31.03.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm also suffered due to the CovidPatna 19 in as much as pursuant to the Memo No. 1303 dated 23.03.2020 issued by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna all the mining activities in the State came to stand still 31.03.2020. Subsequently, the same was also extended in view of the national lockdown and it was only after the decision taken vide Memo No. 1323 dated 20.04.2020 by the same official that the mining activities got restarted effective from 22.04.2020, according to him, the petitioner as such suffered loss of thirty days and in that background, a representation was preferred to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (respondent no. 5) on 30.09.2020. 11. According to him, it was specifically stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 that when the remission in royalty has been granted to the sand mining lease holders due to Covid-19 lockdown, similar benefit may be extended to them inasmuch as either the lease term should have been extended for thirty days or alternatively they should have been granted proportionate remission in royalty for thirty days (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). 12. It is his submission that the respondent authorities failed to take any decision and in the meantime, the lease period came to an end. As they failed to take any decision for extension of lease period for a month, the second prayer of grant of remission should have been considered and granted, which they never did. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner concludes by submitting that in the aforesaid background, it is just and proper representation which should have been considered and necessary concession should have been granted. 14. Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned Special P.P. for Mines, on the other hand has taken this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 with reference to paragraph 7 which read as follows:— “7. That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has not stated about the annual average quarrying of stones under the agreement each year and the quantity of quarrying done in year 2020. Average production by the petitioner in has been 2016 to 2020 has year 2016 to 10465560.44 cft., while in 2020 production was 20886525 cft. That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has not stated about the annual average quarrying of stones under the agreement each year and the quantity of quarrying done in year 2020. Average production by the petitioner in has been 2016 to 2020 has year 2016 to 10465560.44 cft., while in 2020 production was 20886525 cft. Which is more than average production, it would be depicted by the Enquiry report dated 22/2/2021 of the Mining Development Officer, Aurangabad regarding the average quarrying done by petitioner.” 15. This matter was taken up on 30.06.2023 and the respondent authorities were directed to clarify why two different yardstick has been adopted in case of sand mining lease holders vis-a-vis the petitioner firm who are in the business of stone quarry. 16. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and learned Special P.P. took this Court to paragraph 11 of the said affidavit according to which, it is not thirty days rather only twenty-nine days out of whole five years and as such the restriction imposed vide Memo No. 1323 dated 20.04.2020 passed by the Special Secretary-cum- Director, Bihar, Patna. 17. This Court would like to incorporate paragraph 11 of the supplementary counter affidavit. “11. That it is stated that during Covid period, there was only restriction for 29 days on mining activities in stone mineral and vide Memo no. 1323 dt. 20.04.2020, the order for continuation of mining activity had been passed and that 29 days restriction in the whole 5 years' time period is negligible. Whereas in sand, apart from 43 days restriction due to Covid in year 2020, mining operation also prohibited during monsoon period from 01.07.2020 to 30.09.2020 and also increase in 50% royalty.” 18. It is his further submission that those engaged in sand mining suffered during rainy season and as such they cannot be equated with the petitioner firm who are in the business of stone query. 19. He however accepts that the representation remained pending inasmuch as no order was passed. 20. Having gone through the rival submissions, this Court finds force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There was a request by the Central Government specifically stating that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Industries specially the mineral development and productions have suffered and as such their request for concession be taken into account. 21. 20. Having gone through the rival submissions, this Court finds force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There was a request by the Central Government specifically stating that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Industries specially the mineral development and productions have suffered and as such their request for concession be taken into account. 21. It is an admitted fact that they have considered the case of sand minings and accordingly and also gave concession. 22. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to Memo No. 1323 dated 20.04.2020 passed by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Bihar, Patna, the business activity came to a stand still for thirty days and/or twenty-nine days (as the Special P.P. claims) and which has also been incorporated in supplementary counter affidavit. In that background, the representation preferred by the petitioner firm to either extend the period of lease and/or grant remission for thirty days/twenty-nine days should have been considered and appropriate decision taken vis-a-vis the decision taken accordingly. 23. However, no decision was taken despite the fact that the representation was preferred on 30.09.2020 i.e at least four months before the lease period came to an end on 31st of March, 2021. 24. As the said prayer was not considered, the only thing that could have been done is to grant remission which again they have neither considered not granted. 25. In the aforesaid background, the contention put forward by the Mines Department, Bihar, Patna is rejected and they are directed to consider the representation dated 30.09.2020 preferred by the petitioner firm taking into account the request letter of the Central Government as also the fact that in case of sand mining, the relief has been extended. 26. The decision has to be taken and the natural consequences be followed within a period of three months from today. 27. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.