Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15863 of 2021 M/S Shiv And Company State Of U.P. And 2 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : : Birendra Singh C.S.C. Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Secretary, Bhutatva Evam Khani Karm, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow, respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 78(R)/SM/2020, Ziladhikari, Chitrakoot versus M/s Shiv and Company and another, so far relates to security amount to be adjusted with the Royalty amount and further to direct to re- calculate the amount and pass afresh order to recover the remaining from the petitioner. (b). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not recover the royalty amount of III and IV instalment of Ist. year lease amount."
Facts
3. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 08.9.2017 was issued inviting applications for E-Tender/E-Auction for mining lease over Gata No. 2 and 738 area 06.07 Hectare, in village Mau, 'B', Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot. Thereafter a letter of intent dated 13.11.2017 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot granting mining lease being the highest bidder in respect of mining area situated as Gata No. 2 and 738 area 06.07 Hectare, in village Mau, 'B', Tehsil Karvi, 2 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 District Chitrakoot. Subsequently, mining lease dated 31.1.2018 was executed and the petitioner started mining operation. 4. On 14.4.2018, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.4.2018 to the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot requesting therein that the inspection may be conducted and evaluate the minerals as provided under Rule 32 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1963'). The Copy of the representation is not on record as the petitioner has not annexed with the memo of writ petition nor the same has been filed by the respondents while filing the counter affidavit. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 21621 of 2018 seeking relief that his application dated 14.4.2018 for terminating of the lease which amounts to request for surrendering mining lease should be considered and decided by the A.D.M., Chitrakoot. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.7.2018 with a direction to the District Magistrate to take decision on the application dated 14.4.2018 on or before 14.8.2018 subject to filing of certified copy of the order before the respondent no.3 by the petitioner. It seems that no decision was taken on the representation dated 14.4.2018 as there is no such order on the record to indicate that any such decision was taken by the respondent with regard to application dated 14.4.2018. In the counter affidavit stand taken is that the alleged surrender application was not maintainable at the relevant point of time as there was no provision of surrendering the mining lease under the Rules, 1963. In fact the provision for surrendering of mining lease came into effect in the Rules, 1963 vide notification dated 13.8.2019 vide U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) (47th Amendment) Rules, 2019. 5. The District Magistrate issued notice dated 16.8.2018 to the petitioner as a consequence of default of payment of third installment by the petitioner indicating therein to deposit the third installment amount of Rs. 3,10,60,190/- failing which to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner as per law. Thereafter another reminder notice dated 11.9.2018 was issued. The petitioner instead of depositing the default amount with regard to third installment of the first year of mining lease filed Appeal No.01743 of 2018 under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963 against the notices dated 16.8.2018, 11.9.2018 as stated in paragraph no. 17 of the memo of writ petition. 3 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 6. The appellate authority, on the appeal passed order dated 25.10.2018 for conducting the spot inspection by a three member team and to submit report prior to 16.11.2018. The District Magistrate in furtherance of the order dated 25.10.2018 passed in Appeal No. 01743 of 2018 constituted a five member team which made spot inspection and submitted its report dated 13.11.2018. In the meantime, subsequent notices dated 1.7.2018, 1.10.2018 and 5.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner for deposition of third and fourth installment of the first year of the mining lease but petitioner failed to respond and thereafter final notice dated 10.12.2018 was issued but petitioner failed to respond. 7. The District Magistrate in furtherance of the notice dated 10.12.2018 passed order dated 31.1.2019 terminating the lease of the petitioner exercising power under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 forfeiting the security money amounting to Rs.3,10,60,190/- in favour of the State Government and for recovery of the third and fourth installment total amounting to Rs.6,21,20,380/- along with 18% interest as arrears of land revenue and blacklisted the company of the petitioner for two years under Rule 60 of the Rules, 1963. Further the representations of the petitioner dated 14.4.2018 and 11.6.2018 which was pressed by the petitioner as surrender application was also rejected by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 31.1.2019 on the ground that there is no provision under Chapter IV of the Rules, 1963 for surrender of the mining lease. 8. The order dated 31.1.2019 was challenged in appeal under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963 before the Commissioner, Division, Chitrakoot Dham which was allowed vide order dated 4.12.2019. The Commissioner , Divisional, Chitrakoot Dham while allowing the appeal dated 4.12.2019 set aside the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and also cancelled the lease deed. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot filed Revision No. 78(R)/SM/2020 before the State Government under Rule 78 of the Rules, 1963. The revision filed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot was allowed vide order dated 13.4.2021 except to the extent of blacklisting order contained in the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot which was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner. The 4 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 order dated 13.4.2021 passed in Revision No. 78(R)/SM/2020 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 10. The counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents while contesting the claim of the petitioner relied upon condition no. 22(1) of the advertisement dated 8.9.2017 which provides that a prospecting bidder should satisfy himself about the availability of mineral at the spot and other relevant material aspects before participating in the auction and any claim after participation in the bid proceedings will not be entertained. Further the lease deed dated 31.1.2018 also contains specific clause reiterating the condition no. 22(1) of the advertisement dated 8.9.2017 and hence the state authorities has contended that the claim of the petitioner regarding non availability of the mineral is not permissible and since there being no provision of surrender of mining lease deed at the relevant point of time, hence the surrender application of the petitioner for surrendering the mining lease cannot be entertained. 11. During the course of argument the State counsel also pointed out that the provision for surrender of mining lease came into effect in the Rule, 1963 vide notification dated 13.8.2019 vide U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) (47th Amendment) Rules, 2019 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus, it could not be disputed that there was no provision of surrender of mining lease on 14.4.2018 when the alleged representations dated 14.4.2018 and 11.6.2018 were filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot claiming it to be surrender application, whereas a bare perusal of the application did not refer any intention of the surrender of the mining lease, rather it speaks of conducting inspection in terms of rule 32 of Rules, 1963 as stated by the petitioner in paragraph no. 10 of memo of the writ petition. 12. Be that as it may be, this Court finds that while passing the impugned revisional order dated 13.4.2021 the revisional authority failed to record any reason for reaching any conclusion allowing the revision. A bare perusal of the revisional order indicates that after reiterating the stand of the parties, in the second last paragraph, it has been concluded by the revisional authority that since the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot has passed the order dated 31.1.2019 under Rule, 58 of the Rules, 1963 for recovery of amount on the 5 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 default committed by the petitioner for payment of third and fourth installment of the first year of the mining lease, hence there is no illegality in the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot without recording any reason. However, the revisional authority held that blacklisting the mining lease holder for two years is not justified as Rule 60(2) has come into effect since 13.8.2019. 13. Thus the revisional order dated 13.4.2021 by which the appellate order dated 4.12.2019 was set aside is a non speaking order as there is no discussion on the claim of the parties with respect to the issue involved in the revision. The issue whether while deciding the revision, the revisional authority is bound to make a speaking order in reference to Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was adjudicated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 29.3.1967 in the case of Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0002/1967, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Central Government discharges functions which are judicial while exercising its power of revision under Rule 55. Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "10. It is now well settled that in exercising its powers of revision under r. 55 the Central Government discharges functions which are judicial see Shivji Nathubhai v. The Union Of India & Ors. MANU/SC/0013/1960: [1960]2SCR775 and M. P. Industries v. Union [1966] 2 S.C.R. 466. In the latter case one of us (our present Chief Justice) said (at p. 471): The entire scheme of the rules posits a judicial procedure and the Central Government
Legal Reasoning
is constituted as a tribunal to dispose of the said revision. Indeed this Court in Shivji Nathabhai v. The Union of India (supra) rules that the Central Government exercising its power of review under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 was acting judicially as a tribunal. The new rule, if at all is clearer in that regard and emphasises the judicial character of proceeding. If it was a tribunal this Court under Art 136 of the Constitution can entertain an appeal against the order of the Central Government made in exercise of its revisional powers under r. 55 of the Rules.". 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 6 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 51 held in paragraph no. 18 that any order affecting the right of the parties either by quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority must be a speaking order. Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'." 15. In the present case, the revisional authority while passing the revisional order dated 13.4.2021 did not record any finding which is evident from the concluding paragraphs of the revisional order which is quoted herein below:- "्ऺितप्षी के िव्षान अिधव्वा ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत मौिखक व िलिखत तकॏल व िनगरानीकतार् (िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट) के ्ऺितिनिध खान अिधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट की उपिस्थित में प्ऴावली के साथ ्ऺस्तुत अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया गया। स्प्ि है िक प्टाधारक ्षारा ्ऺथम वषर् की तृतीय व चतुथर् िकश्त की कु ल धनरािश रु० 6,21,20,380.00 जमा न करने के कारण उ०्ऺ० उपखिनज (पिरहार) िनयमावली-1963 के िनयम-58 के अनुसार खनन प्टा शतॏल का उल्लघन िकये जाने के दृि्िगत् िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट ्षारा अपने आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 के माध्यम से प्टेधारक के खनन प्टे को िनरस्त कर जमा ्ऺितभूित की धनरािश रू० 3,10,60,190.00 को राज्य सरकार के प्ष में जब्त करते हुए कु ल देय धनरािश को भू-राजस्व के रूप में 18 ्ऺितशत वािषक ब्याज सिहत वसूले जाने हेतु वसूली माँग प्ऴ जारी िकये जाने के आदेश पािरत करते हुए प्टेदार को दो वषॏल के िलए काली सूची में डाला गया। िनयमावली-1963 के िनयम-60 (2) जो िदनांक 13.08.2019 से ्ऺभावी है, के अनुसार- "If a lease is terminated under sul-rule(1) or rule 58, the lessee may be black listed by the District Officer for such period, not exceeding two years, as he may consider proper." उपरो्व से स्प्ि है िक प्टेदार को िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट के आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 के ्षारा दो वषॏल हेतु कालीसूची में डाला जाना न्यायसंगत नहीं है। उपरो्व आदेश के िवरू्ध प्टेदार ्षारा आयु्व िच्ऴकू ट धाम मण्डल, बांदा के सम्ष ्ऺस्तुत अपील में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 के अनुसार "िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट का ्ऺश्नगत् आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 िनरस्त िकये जाने के साथ संदिभत खनन प्टा भी िनरस्त िकया जाता है। ्ऺितभूित की वापसी हेतु िनयमानुसार कायर्वाही की जाए", के संबंध में स्प्ि करना है िक मा० आयु्व, िच्ऴकू ट धाम मण्डल , बांदा ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 िनयमानुसार नहीं है तथा िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट ्षारा प्टेदार पर आरोिपत बकाया धनरािश की गणना िनयमानुसार की गई है िजसमें िकसी हस्त्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अतः उपरो्व के दृि्िगत् आयु्व, िच्ऴकू ट धाम मण्डल, बांदा ्षारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 को िनरस्त कर िजलािधकारी, िच्ऴकू ट को िनदरॏिशत िकया जाता है िक वह अपने आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 में से कालीसूची वाले अंश को हटाते हुए तथा प्टेदार पर बकाया धनरािश को जमा ्ऺितभूित की धनरािश से समायोिजत करने के उपरान्त अवशेष धनरािश की गणना कर पुनः आदेश पािरत करें। ्ऺस्तुत िनगरानी 7 WRIC No. 15863 of 2021 िनस्तािरत की जाती है।" 16. In view of the above, the impugned order of revisional authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority to take fresh decision on Revision No. 78(R)/SM/2020 within a period of two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. September 15, 2025 Gaurav (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad