AMARESHWAR SAHAY
China Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Amareshwar Shay J.
1. Common question on similar facts are involved in both the writ petitions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts of WP(C) No. 2222 OF 2005 are as follows:
It appears that Stone Mining Lease over two Acres of land situating on Plot Nos. 649, 650, 652, 653 and 654 in Mouza Kulkulidanga in the District of Durnka was granted in favour of the petitioner for 5 years in the year 1994 which was subsequently renewed for 10 years i.e. for the period 11.09.1999 to 11.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Durnka, by order dated 29.05.2004, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner which according to the petitioner, is bad as it was done without initiating any proceedings as contemplated under Section 4(1) or Section 4A(3) and Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules 40(1) and of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972.
The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 29.05.2004. The Mines Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 02.02.05/09.03.05 as contained In Annexure-1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.