Bimli Devi … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma 3. The Assistant Mining
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 5363 of 2022 --- Bimli Devi … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma 3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma … … --- Respondents CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Respondents --- : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG --- 5/14.03.2023 Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to AG for the State. Defect, as pointed out by the office is ignored. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease by giving benefit of the period during which the matter was kept pending before the revisional authority and due to delay in obtaining environmental clearance certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that initially a mining lease for stone was granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner in the year 2001 effective from 19.03.2001 to 18.03.2011 with respect to Plot no. 1058 measuring an area of 6.88 acres situated under Mouza Taratanr, District Koderma. On account of the death of the husband of the petitioner, during the subsistence of the lease, the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 13.05.2004 by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and consequently the deed of nomination of agreement of mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner vide indenture of nomination dated 16.07.2004. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was carrying on quarrying stone on payment of royalty etc. to the government. The lease was to expire on 18.03.2011 and prior to the expiry of the validiy of the aforesaid period, an application was preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the same on 05.10.2010. The said application could not be disposed of by the concerned authority and therefore, the same attained the status of deemed rejection in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. Against the deemed rejection, the petitioner had moved the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No. 79 of 2011 and vide order dated 17.03.2012, the order of deemed rejection was set aside and the respondent no. 2 was directed to dispose of the -2- application of the petitioner within a period of 90 days. In spite of the direction of the Revisional Authority, the application of the petitioner
Decision
could not be disposed of in time which led the petitioner, instead of filing the petition for modification of the aforesaid order, preferring a fresh revision being Revision Case No. 96 of 2012 which was disposed of once again by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand directing the respondent no. 2 to pass an order on merits in accordance with law within a period of 90 days. This order was also not complied with by the respondent no. 2 which constrained the petitioner to prefer another revision application being Revision Case No. 312 of 2012 which was disposed of on 20.08.2015 with a direction to pass a speaking order in terms of the provisions of Jharkhand Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 within a period of 90 days. It is the case of the petitioner that she had submitted all the necessary documents and had taken steps for obtaining environmental clearance certificate. The mining plan submitted by the petitioner was approved by the competent authority vide Memo no. 336 dated 27.09.2014 and the same was submitted before the concerned Ministry along with all the required documents. The environmental clearance certificate was subsequently issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 07.08.2015. After issuance of the environmental clearance certificate and royalty clearance certificate and after making necessary inquiry, the mining period of the petitioner was extended vide order dated 20.08.2015 for a further period of 10 years with effect from the last date of expiry of the earlier term i.e. 18.03.2011 which was valid upto 17.03.2021. Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel has submitted that no relaxation has been made for the period for which the application for renewal of lease was kept pending before the concerned authorities and there was also a delay in issuing the environmental clearance certificate by the concerned department and therefore, since the delay was not on the part of the petitioner, the period for renewal should not have included the period from 18.03.2011 to 20.10.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 1337 of 2022 in support of his contention. -3- Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G. on the other hand has submitted that though there was a delay in considering the renewal application of the petitioner, but the same was ultimately done, and now even the period of 10 years w.e.f. 18.03.2011 has expired. It has further been submitted that so far as the environmental clearance certificate is concerned, the same is issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Grievance of the petitioner appears to be the non-relaxation of the period during which the petitioner was seeking her remedy for extension of the period of lease. It has been specifically stated that during the period from 18.03.2011 to 20.10.2015, no mining activity was carried out by the petitioner while the application for lease was pending. The petitioner after the deemed rejection of the lease had preferred several revision applications before the Revisional Authority and finally, she had succeeded and consequent to the orders passed on 20.08.2015, the lease was renewed for a period of 10 years effective from 19.03.2011. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was a delay in obtaining the environmental clearance certificate which had not occurred on the part of the petitioner. Apart from the renewal of the lease, though request for issuance of environmental clearance certificate was made in time, but on account of the lapses on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was deprived from carrying out mining activities from 18.03.2011 to 20.10.2015. Since the grievance of the petitioner with respect to non-exclusion of the period from 18.03.2011 to 20.10.2015 has not been considered by the authorities, who have to decide the issue at the first instance, this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order as well as the copy of the writ petition before the respondent no. 2 who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. R Shekhar Cp 2 (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)