The court established that premature termination of a mining lease is justified if the lessee fails to comply with lease terms and safety regulations, and that the authority must grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking such action.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The petitioner has assailed the order impugned passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum on 5th February, 2021, terminating the long term mining lease granted to the petitioner on 21st August, 2018.

2. Being the highest bidder in an e-auction floated on 27th October, 2016 for extraction of sand from the sand block in question and upon depositing one third of the bid amount, letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25th April, 2017 and subsequently upon completion of the official paraphernalia, deed of lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the sand block on 21st August, 2017. After continuing mining operation for some time, the petitioner was verbally asked to stop operation of the sand block without any reasoned communication being made to him despite the petitioner depositing Rs. 32,29,500/- with the District Magistrate's Office. Out of transit pass/challan issued for more than 3.10 lakhs cubic feet of sand the petitioner could only utilise 0.50 lakhs cubic feet upon payment being made for the same and the remaining 2.60 lakh cubic sq.ft challan was returned to the office of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer. The lease of the petitioner was terminated prematurely on the ground that the sand block allotted to the petitioner was situated between two railway bridges and was within the restricted zone.

3. One Lakshman Baski who is similarly situated with the petitioner and was granted lease of a sand block in river bed Mayurakshi was accommodated in an alternative sand block as there was some difficulty and dispute in carrying on mining operation in the earlier block. The petitioner demanded equal treatment and requested grant of an alternative sand block in place of the earlier block in order to enable him to carry on mining operation but such request fell on deaf ears. The petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory and arbitrary treatment by the authority resulting in huge financial loss incurred by him as the sand block allotted to him is not operational at all.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the deed of lease issued in favour of the Lakshman Baski on 31st August, 2017 and a subsequent lease executed in his favour in respect of an alternative sand block on 14th June, 2018 and has submitted that the second deed was executed without fresh bidding.

5. Referring to section 4A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957, learned counsel has submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in terms of this provision of law prior to making a premature termination of the lease.

6. Though at the outset, learned counsel has expressed his reservation in regard to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents as the same was affirmed by an officer of lower rank, he has relied upon the contents of the opposition as follows:-

Page-67 H is the approval for grant of compensatory concession site to Lakshman Baski.

Page -72 records the name of the petitioner as a lease holder who has deposited one third or above but below two third of the bid amount and also indicates existence of rail bridge within 100 metres of the sand block allotted to the petitioner.

Page -75 C of the affidavit-in-opposition speaks of an information that a bridge is being constructed within 300 metres of the sand block in question.

Page -78 (3) which is part of the recommendation of the District Committee speaks about recommendation by the inspecting team for permanent closure of the mining activities in the sand block allotted to the petitioner as the sand block is situated within the restricted zone and requires the District Magistrate to take appropriate steps for premature termination of the lease and deal with any question of refund of the bid amount if situation so arises.

Page -82 which is a sketch map indicates the location of the sand block in question.

7. Referring to page -11 of the affidavit-