The High Court
Case Details
04/29.1.2024 2. Heard the parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 5030 of 2023 M/s Jindal Stone Works through its Proprietor Kanhaiya Kumar Khudania. Versus .....Petitioner 1. 2. 3. State of Jharkhand represented through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. P.S. & District-Sahibganj. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. P.S. & District-Sahibganj. ......Respondents
Legal Reasoning
expedited the petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.C. No. 137 of 2023 which
Arguments
------ Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Respondents-State : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to A.G. -------- -------- In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 54 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner against Communication No. 812/M dated 8.9.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Memo No. 812/M dated 8.9.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the registered mining lease dated 7.9.2015/14.9.2015 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 8.9.2022 and order dated 16.5.2023 to permit the petitioner to carry on the mining activities over the leasehold area for the entire tenure of the lease. 3. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Jindal Stone Works, Sahibganj who had executed a deed of lease with the concerned department for minor mineral stone in Mauza-Lohandabedo, Thana Borio, Bandobasti No. 24, Plot No. 5/P & 6/P measuring an area of 5 acres vide registered deed dated 7.9.2015 for a period of 10 years with effect from 21.8.2015. 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. 763/M dated 26.8.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 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 -2- vide order as contained in Memo No. 812/M dated 8.9.2022 the respondent no. 2 had terminated the mining lease executed in favour of the petitioner. Against the order of termination dated 8.9.2022, the petitioner had preferred a revision application being Revision Application No.54 of 2022 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in terms of Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and since the hearing of the case was not being
Decision
was disposed of on 24.1.2023 directing the Mines Commissioner to expedite the disposal of the revision application preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Consequent to the order dated 24.1.2023, passed in W.P.C. No. 137 of 2023 the Mines Commissioner had rejected the revision application vide order dated 16.5.2023 with which also, the petitioner is aggrieved. 5. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 2 on 26.8.2022 granting seven 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. 2 dated 8.9.2022 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 infact the reasons which have been given are the purported show cause issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. While referring to the order of dismissal dated 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Application No. 54/2022, 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. 2 which itself reveals further non application of mind on the part of the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, 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. 2 and since the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory therefore the respondent no. 2 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. 2 and infact the respondent no. 2 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 -3- Memo no. 812/M dated 8.9.2022 and the order dated 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 54/2022. 7. Mr. Rahul Kumar, 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. 2 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 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 seven days in terms of the requirement of the notice issued by the respondent no. 2, 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. 2 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. 2 terminating the lease executed in favour of the petitioner vide Memo No. 812/M dated 8.9.2022 and what we find from the said communication is non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2 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 8.9.2022 does not contain any valid reasons and indicates non application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2. The order dated 8.9.2022 as contained in Memo No. 812/M was under scrutiny in the revision application preferred by the petitioner in Revision Case No. 54 of 2022 and the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand dated 18.7.2023 basically reiterates what has been stated by the respondent no. 2 in his communication dated 26.8.2022. Infact 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 petitioner. Infact, it appears that the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, -4- Jharkhand dated 18.7.2023 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. 2 without any independent application of mind on the part of the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand. 8. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove quash the Memo No.812/M dated 8.9.2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 16.5.2023 passed in Revision Case No. 54/2022 by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and remand the matter back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also taking into consideration the findings recorded by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. 9. weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ application stands disposed of. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of six (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-