Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
M/s. Shah Brothers – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2013 of 2020
Decided On : 21-05-2021
Partnership Act, 1932 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 24A(1) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Sections 8A(3) and 8A(6) - Minerals Concessions Rules, 2016 - Rule 12(10) - terminating the mining lease - Seeking quash of final Order - Partnership firm - Petitioner is a partnership firm, registered under provisions of Partnership Act, 1932. A mining lease over an area Hectare in Reserve Forest of District West was granted to petitioner with effect for a period - Soon after lease was executed petitioner had commenced mining operation - First application for renewal of mining lease of petitioner was submitted terms of Rule 24A(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, remained pending till Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 was promulgated – Held, Appellant would have been entitled to prefer an appeal against it under Section 55 and it is difficult to see how the appellant could have possibly attacked the order in appeal order did not disclose reasons on which it was based - It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of order it makes - Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. That is the minimum requirement of law laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. vs. Union of India - contained only the final and operative order made by Commission and did not record any reasons whatsoever in support of it and the appellant was, in the circumstances, entitled to claim that the Order should be revoked by Commission - Petitioner in its reply to the show-cause notice; without going into merits of the case, the instant writ application is partly allowed and impugned order consequential order hereby quashed and set aside - Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. With consent of the parties this case is taken up through Video Conferencing.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:
(b) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 28/M dated 04.01.2019 (Annexure-17) issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand-respondent No. 3, whereby and whereunder the mining lease of the petitioner over an area of 239.99 hectare in Mauja Karampada (Reserve Forest), District West Singhbhum has been terminated.
(c) For a further writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioner to operate its mines by issuing Transit Permit and Transit Challans as required in law.
(d) For any other relief for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The relevant facts as disclosed in the instant writ application are that the petitioner is a partnership firm, registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, 1932. A mining lease over an area of 233.99 Hectare in Karampada Reserve Forest of District West Singhbhum was granted to the petitioner with effect from 10.07.1972 for a period of 30 years. Soon after the lease was executed, the petitioner had commenced mining operation. The first application for renewal of the mining lease of the petitioner was submitted on 09.07.2001 in terms of Rule 24A(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which remained pending till the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 was promulgated.
Upon coming into force of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, by virtue of Sections 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the said Act the mining lease of the petitioner stood extended up to 09.07.2022 and a supplementary lease deed was executed between the State and the petitioner on 28.03.2017.
While the application for surrender of 69.721 hectare of land was pending before the State Government, the petitioner approached this Court by filling a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 3392 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2017 by directing the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand to dispose of the application for surrender of 69.721 hectare of forest land submitted by the petitioner within four weeks from passing of the order. However, no letter was issued to the petitioner, communicating that the area of 69.721 hectare of forest land stands surrendered to the State Government by the petitioner. During pendency of the surrender application the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa came up with a stand that the petitioner has not paid NPV for entire forest land. Thereafter petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 8,54,20,193/- towards NPV. In the meantime on 08.12.2016 a notice was issued to the petitioner in terms to Rule 12(10) of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as MC Rules, 2016). By the said notice certain irregularities/breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease deed were alleged against the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to submit reply. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show-cause replies dated 31.01.2017 and 08.02.2017. On the basis thereof, the Member of Board of Revenue heard the petitioner and thereafter an order dated 04.01.2019 (Annexu
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
