Delay in registration of mining lease transfer due to unavoidable circumstances, such as a partner's quarantine, warrants judicial consideration and cannot justify revocation of permission.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

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

“1. The order dated 09.06.2021 (Annex.7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. The respondents may kindly be restrained from revoking the permission for transfer granted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 30.09.2020 (Annex.2)

III. The respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue the mining activities under the transferred Mining Lease no. 20/2006.

IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

V. Cost of the litigation may also kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent department had issued Mining Lease No.20/2006 for a period of thirty years in favour of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals for mining of Quartz Feldspar. Shri Parwat Singh Aashiya, father of Shri Devendra Pratap Singh Aashiya, was one of the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals. The firm undertook mining operations in compliance with all legal requirements. Subsequently, the tenure of the mining lease was extended from thirty to fifty years. In the year 2009, the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals mutually agreed to transfer the said mining lease to M/s. Vaibhav Minerals. Pursuant to this agreement, M/s. Kalpatru Minerals submitted an application to the respondent department in the prescribed format for the transfer of Mining Lease No. 20/2006 and deposited the required documents and fees. The respondent authorities considered the application and, by order dated 30.09.2020, permitted the transfer of the mining lease in favour of M/s. Vaibhav Minerals. The order specified that both parties must execute a transfer deed within three months from the date of issuance. Following the said order, a transfer deed was executed between M/s. Kalpatru Minerals and M/s. Vaibhav Minerals on 27.10.2020. The deed was required to be registered within two months thereafter. However, due to one of the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals being under home quarantine and unable to attend the registration process, the deed was registered on 30.12.2020—three days after the stipulated date. Thereafter, M/s. Vaibhav Minerals submitted the registered transfer deed on 01.01.2021 to respondent No.3, who permitted the petitioner to commence mining operations and issued necessary documents, including Challan and Ravanna Books. The petitioner regularly paid the amount of royalty and dead rent. Despite compliance, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 21.01.2021 to the petitioner, alleging that the transfer deed was registered after expiry of the prescribed two-month period and proposing revocation of the transfer order. The petitioner filed a detailed reply explaining that the registration delay was unavoidable because one of the partners was under quarantine. The petitioner also requested condonation of the three-day delay in registration. Respondent No.2, passed an order dated 09.06.2021, revoking the permission of transfer granted by order dated 30.09.2020 and ordering forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner and thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.8643/2021 : M/s Vaibhav Minerals v. Department of Mines and Geology & Ors., submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above-said order. The said order dated 04.11.2023, reads as under:-

“1. The present writ p