Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Smt. Chandra Kala Bilochi D/o Shri Daulat Ram Bilochi - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9763 of 2014
Decided on : 07-10-2023
Revocation of Mining Lease - Mining Lease - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rule 26 - The court quashed the Final Order dated 31.01.2014 and restored the sanction order dated 19.05.2010. The court considered the petitioner's compliance with the notice dated 01.06.2010 and the subsequent application for extension of time due to the petitioner's major surgery. The court found that the petitioner had fulfilled most requirements and that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's medical condition and application for extension of time. The court held that the impugned orders were arbitrary and quashed them, allowing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of advance dead rent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a mining lease, which was sanctioned, but later revoked due to alleged non-compliance with formalities. The petitioner, citing a major surgery, sought an extension of time, which was not considered by the authorities. The petitioner challenged the revocation through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had fulfilled most requirements and that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's medical condition and application for extension of time. The court held that the impugned orders were arbitrary and quashed them, allowing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of advance dead rent.
Issues: Non-compliance with formalities, revocation of mining lease, consideration of petitioner's medical condition and application for extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's medical condition and application for extension of time, and that the impugned orders were arbitrary.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Final Order dated 31.01.2014 and restored the sanction order dated 19.05.2010, allowing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of advance dead rent.
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:-
ii) the sanction order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexue-1) may kindly be restored and the respondent No.4 may be directed to execute the mining lease deed within a specified time; and
iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also granted in favour of the petitioner; and
iv) costs of the writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease for the minerals namely Quartz and Feldspar near Village Rawatpura Tehsil Girva District Udaipur and after finding petitioner suitable vide order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure- 1), the mining lease was sanctioned in her favour.
3. The respondent No.4 Mining Engineer, Udaipur Division, Udaipur, issued a letter dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-2) in pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) wherein the petitioner was directed to complete the formalities for execution of the mining lease deed. The petitioner duly deposited the advance dead rent for six months with Tax Collected at Source, Map Fees vide Cash Receipts dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure-3). The petitioner also purchased the non-judicial stamp of Rs.1,200/- within a week from the date of receipt of the letter dated 01.06.2010, however, on account of a major surgery the petitioner had to undergo on an emergent basis, the petitioner could not submit the stamp papers in pursuance of the letter dated 01.06.2010.
4. The petitioner submitted an application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) before the respondent No.4 seeking extension of time for compliance of the letter dated 01.06.2010. The respondent No.4 issued an order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7) and revoke the sanction of mining lease. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforementioned order preferred the revision petition before the respondent No.1-Secretary Department of Mines and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11). Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that:-
(A) The petitioner was not inclined to make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-2) as the petitioner had duly deposited the advance dead rent for six months with Tax Collected at Source for which, the cash receipts have also been placed on record and had further purchased the non-judicial stamps of Rs.1,200/- as well as had subjected financial assurance worth Rs.1,00,000/- and a security deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit receipts of the Bank, however, the respondents without considering the fact that the other conditions of the notice dated 01.06.2010, could not be fulfilled by the petitioner on account of the major surgery she had to undergo, the respondents arbitrary revoked the sanction of mining lease.
(B) The medical record of the petitioner was also placed before the respondent No.1 alongwith revision, however, the same has not been considered and in a mechanical manner, the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
(C) As mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexue-7), that the petitioner had been served upon a notice dated 25.03.2011, is not correct as the petitioner was never served upon such notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that assuming that the notice dated 25.03.2011 was served upon the petitioner, then, in the said circumstances, the application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) filed by the petitioner for extension of time, was filed well within a period of thirty days as laid down under Rule 26(1) of the Miner
The court emphasized the importance of considering extenuating circumstances, such as the petitioner's medical condition, and held that arbitrary decisions without due consideration are not permissib....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in administrative actions, particularly the right to a hearing and jurisdictional limits post-mineral classification changes.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease conditions and highlighted that sympathy or mercy cannot override the terms and conditions of a lease agreement.
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 Concess....
Rule 18 (21) of Rules, 1986, which provide for alternate consequences of breach of conditions of lease.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
