The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of observing the principles of natural justice in administrative decisions, and the requirement for authorities to consider relevant documents and provide adequate opportunity for defense.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein following reliefs :-

(a.) Quashing/setting aside with all consequences the order of demand as contained in letter no.849 dated 14.6.2018 passed by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, (Annexure- 11), holding and declaring the same to be a nullity, in violation of the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction;

(b.) quashing the subsequent order as contained in letter dated 03.05.2019 of the District Mining Officer (Annexure- 18) whereby he has refused to amend/correct/reconsider the said order dated 14.6.2018;

(c.) quashing/setting aside the revisional order dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure-20) passed in Revision Application no. 6/(7)/2019/RC-I of 2019 by the Joint Secretary & Revisional Authority, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, holding the same to be illegal, arbitrary and suffering from Wednesbury unreasonableness;

(d.) during the pendency of this petition:-

(i) operation of the impugned orders may be stayed;

(ii) no coercive steps be issued pursuant thereto;

(iii) the respondent authorities of the Mining department of Jharkhand be restrained from withholding or forbearing to issue the transit challans to the petitioner; and

(iv) respondents be directed to issue/release the mining challans to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-

The petitioner applied for and was granted a mining lease for iron ore and manganese ore, situated in the District of West Singhbhum of Jharkhand, known as Parambaljori iron and manganese ore mines. The grant was made by the State Government of Jharkhand on 18.08.2010 after following due procedure for an area of 47.15 hectares, equivalent to 116.50 acres. The period of lease was initially 30 years, which got extended to 50 years as per the amended provision with effect from 12.01.2015 under section 8A (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for captive use of the minerals.

3. Soon after the grant of mining lease to the petitioner, vide the lease deed dated 22.02.2011, there was an inspection carried out on 29.07.2011 as to the boundary- demarcation of petitioner's lease area by the Mines Inspector in the presence of the petitioner's representative. It was reported that there are 46 pillars which have been tallied with the pillars of the forest department and that all the pillars have been found to be in accordance with the official map.

4. The petitioner started the mining operation on 10.01.2013. The entire mining work has been done in the portion falling between the pillars no. 6 to 15, which corresponds to and covers the portions of the old/pre-existing quarries no.1 to 5.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that an inspection was allegedly carried out on 26.04.2018 by the Mines Inspector, Chaibasa in the petitioner's mine behind the back of the petitioner. The inspection report prepared on 27.04.2018 alleges that the boundary pillars were inspected and the position of pillar no. 1 to pillar no. 3 has been found to be not in accordance with the DGPS survey. No report was made of any mining being done outside the lease area.

6. Thereafter, another inspection was allegedly made on 12.05.2018 by the Mines Inspector around the petitioner's mining lease area. It has been alleged in the inspection report that mining work was found to have been done outside the area of the petitioner's lease, between pillar no. 1 to pillar no. 3. In the inspection report it has been mentioned that on 12.05.2018 sectional measurement was done with the Chain Career regarding the mining work done outside the lease area of the iron ore mining lease area. The quantity of the excavated mineral comes to 25000 cubic meter (approximately).

7. Based on such measurement, violation of Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A) of the MMD&R Act has been alleged and it has