Affording an opportunity of hearing before cancelling a mining lease is essential to comply with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.

ORDER :

SBCWP No.12278/2012 :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“i) quash the order of cancellation dated 13.04.2005 (Annex.2), the appellate order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4) and the revisional order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5).

ii) the mining lease of the petitioner may kindly be restored back in favour of the petitioner with effect from the date of taking over possession and the petitioner may be permitted to avail the remaining period of lease after taking over the possession till the expiry of the period of lease; and

iii) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and

iv) cost of writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted mining lease (ML No.20/87) for mineral Granite near Village Bithiya, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1986’) for period of ten years from 10.08.1988. The period was thereafter further extended from 10 to 20 years vide order dated 22.07.1998 upto 09.08.2008. The petitioner has been depositing dead-rent etc., on regular basis in accordance with law. In the month of December, 2004 the petitioner fell seriously ill and upon regaining health, the petitioner approached the office of respondent no.4 for depositing dead-rent etc. The respondents verbally informed the petitioner that since all the documents had been summoned by higher authorities, therefore, upon receiving the documents the petitioner may deposit the dead-rent. The petitioner approached the respondent Authorities several times but no heed was paid. The petitioner came to know that the respondents have passed an order while cancelling the mining lease way back on 13.04.2005 on account of non-compliance of notice dated 22.12.2004 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9188/-as installment and a penalty of Rs.637/-. The petitioner was never served upon the aforementioned notice, however, the petitioner immediately offered the due amount as raised by the respondents, however, the same was refused to be accepted. The period of lease had expired on 21.07.2008 and, thus, the petitioner moved an application for renewal of mining lease but the application was not accepted on the ground that the mining lease has already been cancelled. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order, which was duly furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner had deposited the whole amount of dead rent through the challan with SBBJ Bank. The respondent no.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4). The petitioner thereafter preferred revision petition before the respondent no.1, which came to be dismissed vide order 25.4.2012 (Annex.5). Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 13.04.2005 (Annex.2), order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4) and order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5) prefers this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 proceeded without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the event of mining lease being restored, the balance of the mining lease period, which was not availed due to cancellation of mining lease shall be permitted to be availed after setting aside the cancellation order and in such circumstance there would be no question of filing renewal application until and unless the lease is restored in favour of petitioner and this aspect has not been considered by both the Authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had invested huge amoun