JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - Since in both the writ petitions similar issues are involved, therefore the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 04.01.2019/10.01.2019 as contained in Memo No.28/M / Memo No.54/M passed by the order of the Governor under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand by which the mining lease for iron ore has been cancelled with immediate effect with a direction to forfeit the performance security.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions is that mining lease was granted, they have successfully commenced the mining operation which was renewed time to time and lastly it has been extended upto 09.07.2022 by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 8-A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1957) and in pursuance thereto, supplementary lease deed was executed.

4. The stand of the petitioners is that they are operating the mines after following the statutory provision and after getting the required clearance from the Pollution Control Board under Forest Conservation Act, etc, while doing so, show cause has been issued under the provision of Rule 12(10) of Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 for the irregularity to be remedied within the period of 60 days.

5. The petitioners have replied the same, the authorities have authorized Member Board of Revenue to get the matter enquired, in pursuance thereto, full fledged enquiry has been conducted by the Member Board of Revenue, the report has been submitted and acting upon the said report the impugned decision has been taken by cancelling the lease deed.

6. The petitioners have assailed the said order on the following grounds:-

i. The show cause notice has been issued by the District Mining Officer, hearing has been done by the Member Board of Revenue and the order has been passed by the other authority, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice on the basis of the principle that the order is required to be passed by the authority who has heard the party.

ii. The Member Board of Revenue to whom the enquiry has been directed to be conducted is no authority under the statute to conduct the enquiry, however, there is a provision as contained under Section 26(2) of the Act, 1957 conferring power upon the Central or the State Government to delegate the power. By virtue of the notification, the State Government has come out with an order published in the Gazette notification on 26.06.2018 issued by one Joint Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, the same cannot be said to be a notification in terms of the provision of Section 26(2) of the Act, 1957.

iii. Copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied so prejudice has been caused. In the enquiry report, there is no concrete finding regarding the commission of irregularity rather on presumption and on prima facie irregularity, the authorities have accepted it and cancelled the lease.

iv. Notice is required to be issued by the State Government as per the terms of the provision of Rule 12(10) of Rules, 2016 but the same has been issued by the District Mining Officer.

v. The impugned decision has been taken not by the State Government rather with the approval of the Chief Minister and hence, the same is without jurisdiction.

vi. The State Government means the order to be passed with the due approval of the Cabinet and the Chief Minister cannot be a Cabinet rather he can be said to be a part of the Cabinet and therefore, the decision taken cannot be said to be of the State Government.

7. Learned Advocate General has represented the State of Jharkhand and on the strength of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 has come in