The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 22 of 2024 --------- Madan Kant, S/o Late Dudhnath Choudhary, R/o Netaji Subhash Colony, P.S. Jirwabadi, P.O. & District Sahibganj (Jharkhand) PIN- 816109 ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002 2. The Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 3. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand) 4. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District ... … Respondents Sahibganj (Jharkhand) CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- : Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Petitioner For the Respondents : A.C. to A.G. --------- 03/30.01.2024
Legal Reasoning
taking into consideration the findings recorded by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. 9. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.C. to A.G. for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 15 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner against Memo No. 1228/M dated 22.12.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Memo No. 2457/MC/Ranchi dated 30.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the registered mining lease dated 02.02.2018 executed in favour of the petitioner has been prematurely terminated in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as well as the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner has also prayed upon quashing of the Memo dated 30.11.2023 and order dated 08.11.2023 to permit the petitioner to carry on the mining activities over the leasehold area for the entire tenure of the lease. -2- 3. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner had executed a deed of lease with the concerned department for minor mineral stone in Mauza-Kirokuria, Thana Taljhari, Khata No. 14, Plot No. 18/P 19, 20 & 21/P measuring an area of 4.90 acres in the District of Sahibganj vide registered deed dated 02.02.2018 for a period of 10 years with effect from 06.06.2016. 4. According to the petitioner, it had completed all the requisite formalities and was carrying on mining activities in the leasehold premises. The petitioner had received a notice as contained in Memo No. 1139/M dated 26.11.2022 issued by the respondent no. 4 wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why its mining lease should not be terminated. The petitioner had replied to the said show cause notice within the period stipulated in the notice but ultimately vide order as contained in Memo No. 1228/M dated 22.12.2022 the respondent no. 3 had terminated the mining lease executed in favour of the petitioner. Against the order of termination dated 22.12.2022, the petitioner had preferred a revision application being Revision Case No. 15/2023 before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in terms of Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and the Mines Commissioner had rejected the revision application vide order dated 08.11.2023 with which also, the petitioner is aggrieved. 5. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 4 on 26.11.2022 granting fifteen days’ time to the petitioner to reply to the same is against the provisions of Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It has further been submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 22.12.2023 apparently reveals non application of mind and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as without any reason the lease executed in favour of the petitioner was terminated and in fact the reasons which have been given are in the purported show cause issued by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner. While referring to the order of dismissal dated -3- 08.11.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 15/2023, learned counsel submits that the same also reveals that only the submission of the parties were noted and a stamp of approval was given to the order passed by the respondent no. 3 which itself reveals further non application of mind on the part of the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the show cause notice was issued by the District Mining Officer but the final order terminating the lease of the petitioner has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Learned A.C. to A.G., has submitted that several irregularities were committed by the petitioner which were specified in the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 4 and since the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory therefore the respondent no. 3 had terminated the lease executed in favour of the petitioner and making a reference to the show cause notice would be construed to reveal that the same are the reasons regarding such termination. It has also been submitted that the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand has come to a finding that the Principles of Natural Justice has been followed by the respondent no. 3 and in fact the respondent no. 3 had recorded the reasons for termination of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner and in such circumstances, therefore, no interference is necessitated in the impugned Memo No. 1228/M dated 22.12.2022 and the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 15/2023. 7. Mr. Ranjit Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has primarily relied on two facets of the case; (a) the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 should have granted the period of thirty days to the petitioner to submit its reply as the same would have been in consonance with Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 and (b) the order impugned does not contain any reasons justifying the premature termination of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner. So -4- far as point no. (a) as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned though the statutory period is 30 days in terms of Rule 27 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 but since the petitioner had given a detailed reply within a period of fifteen days in terms of the requirement of the notice issued by the respondent no. 4, we are not much inclined to consider such plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on account of the petitioner having subjected himself to the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 4 and having duly given a reply within the time specified in the notice. So far as point no. (b) which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned we have perused the initial order passed by the respondent no. 3 terminating the lease executed in favour of the petitioner vide Memo No. 1228/M dated 22.12.2022 and what we find from the said communication is non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 3 as he has merely rejected the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner and terminated the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. The reasons which have been given subsequent to the termination of the lease in favour of the petitioner appears to be a repetition of the show cause notice given to the petitioner which further more enhances the claim of the petitioner that the order dated 30.11.2023 does not contain any valid reasons and indicates non application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2. The order dated 08.11.2023 as contained in Memo No. 2457/M was under scrutiny in the revision application preferred by the petitioner in Revision Case No. 15/2023 and the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi dated 08.11.2023 basically reiterates what has been stated by the respondent no. 3 in his communication dated 22.12.2022. In fact, a bald statement has been given to the effect that the Principles of Natural Justice has been followed and the petitioner has failed to answer the irregularities as pointed out in the show cause notice to the petitioner though no reference has been given as to how the irregularities pointed out in the show cause notice was not properly answered by the -5- petitioner. In fact, it appears that the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi dated 08.11.2023 also does not indicate any application of mind and merely contains the submissions of the parties while approving the order passed by the respondent no. 3 without any independent application of mind on the part of the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi. 8. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove quash the Memo No. 1228/M dated 22.12.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3 as well as the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Revision Case No. 15/2023 by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi and remand the matter back to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also
Decision
This writ application stands disposed of. 11. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Alok/-