The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease conditions and highlighted that sympathy or mercy cannot override the terms and conditions of a lease agreement.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the revisional authority, Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 65 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the competent authority of termination of the lease of mining of stone in Mouza-Lodhiya, P.O. Pratappur, under khata No.21, plot no. 118(P), has been refused to be interfered with.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under:

A mining lease deed was executed vide order dated 04.03.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra which was duly registered on 29.03.2016 by taking all the required clearances from the concerned departments.

The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide memo no.356 date 29.03.2022 issued an order asking the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,73,031/- as additional royalty with respect to the mining lease. A reminder was also given by the District Mining Officer, Chatra regarding the payment of the said additional royalty vide letter date 21.04.2022. Thereafter, again another reminder was given vide letter dated 18.06.2022 to make payment of the additional royalty.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that at the relevant time, the writ petitioner was seriously ill and had met with an accident, therefore, requested the Deputy Mining Officer to grant time to make payment of the additional royalty vide letter dated 06.08.2022. Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.10.2022, the writ petitioner again requested for time from the Deputy Mining Officer, Chatra that the amount of additional royalty will be paid by 10.11.2022.

The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no.1076 dated 02.11.2022 informed the petitioner that the lease has been cancelled prematurely and directed the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.9,28,039/-.

The writ petitioner, after due date, deposited the amount of additional royalty along with interest as demanded by the Deputy Mining Officer, Chatra.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the termination of the lease, preferred a revision being Revision Case No. 65 of 2022 before the respondent no.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2023, which has been challenged by filing instant writ petition.

3. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner as would appear from the impugned order that due to financial stringent, the terms and conditions of the lease licence has not been complied with and as such, show cause notices have been issued to him as to why the lease licence be not terminated.

4. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that admittedly the terms and conditions of the lease deed/licence has not been complied with as also the mining dues has not been paid which has been demanded by way of additional royalty for the reason that the petitioner met with an accident and was not in a position to deposit the same, however, the same has been deposited after the due date along with interest. But, in the meanwhile, lease licence was terminated, hence, the writ petitioner has filed revision before the revisional authority questioning the decision of the authority of terminating the lease licence but the revisional authority has refused to interfere with the said decision on the ground that admittedly the terms and conditions of the lease deed/licence has been flouted as also the dues has not been paid.

5. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that since the condition of the writ petitioner was not good due to that reason, the dues was not paid which was demanded by way of additional royalty along with the interest, however, the same has been paid but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the revisional authority has declined to interfere with the decision taken by the competent authority on the termination of the lease licence, as such, the said order cannot be said to be just and proper