1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent-Department of Mines and Geology has by the impugned communication (Annexure-12) bearing memo no. 1716 dated 11th August, 2015 terminated the lease of the petitioner after the matter was remanded in the previous writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4801 of 2014 vide judgment dated 21st February, 2015 in the following terms:-

“8. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that one opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner for defending lease-deed executed in his favour and accordingly, order contained in letter dated 03.09.2014 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 for taking a decision afresh, after granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner for presenting his case including production of evidence in support of his defence. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply to show-cause dated 28.04.2014 within a period of two weeks and a decision may be taken by the respondent no. 2 within next six weeks. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. I.A. No. 222 of 2015 also stands disposed of.”

3. Challenge to the impugned order has been made primarily on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of fairness in the decision making process. It is inter-alia alleged that:

(i) The impugned order has been passed on the grounds which were not part of the show cause dated 28th April, 2014 (Annexure-7).

(ii) The impugned order merely incorporates the charges levelled in the show cause without any finding upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 09th March, 2015.

(iii) Not only the show cause but the impugned order also lacks in specific instances of the violations alleged.

(iv) It also refers to a report of the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur bearing letter no. 1261 dated 04th April, 2015 which was not part of the show cause and in fact has been taken into account after the submission of show cause by the petitioner on 09th March, 2015.

(v) It is urged that the respondents have sought to justify their action on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit and additional documents filed on 06th December, 2016 by way of an affidavit which were un-disputably not part of the show cause notice. By way of the Additional documents brought on record on 06th December, 2016, the respondents have sought to defend their action based on the enquiry report of the Committee of the Legislative Assembly which were conducted behind the back of the petitioner.

(vi) The lease in question is a statutory lease, entered in Form-K under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to MCR). The show cause is not in consonance with the provisions of the Rule 27(5) of MCR where under power to terminate lease for failure to remedy the breach of the terms and conditions of the lease are to be exercised by the State. Rule 27(5) of the MCR stipulates a 60 days notice to remedy the breach and only thereafter the order of termination of lease may be passed if the lessee fails to satisfy or remedy the breach alleged. The show cause was also lacking in this regard. Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi & Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 also relied upon in a recent judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh & Others, (2016) 1 SCC 724 have been cited in support of the contention that the reasons contained in the impugned order cannot be supplemented through subsequent affidavits filed in the instant proceedings.

4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is not a reasoned order in the eye of law as it does not show any application of mind. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, para-47. The impugned decision has entailed serious adverse consequence and also caused prejudice to the pet