Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
M/s Vaishnav Stone Works, through its Proprietor Awadh Kishore Singh, S/o Late Diwakar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, represented through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4474 of 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 63 and Rule 27(2) - Writ petition challenging the premature termination of mining lease - The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner failed to provide a statutory notice and opportunity to be heard before termination - The Mines Commissioner dismissed the revision application, stating that natural justice was followed - The court found that the Deputy Commissioner did not consider the petitioner's explanation, rendering the order arbitrary and without application of mind. (Paras 15, 18, 20, 22)
(B) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice requires that a party must be given an opportunity to present their case and have their submissions considered before any adverse action is taken against them. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a mining lease on 2.2.2018 for a period of 10 years, which was prematurely terminated by the Deputy Commissioner without issuing a statutory notice as required under the rules. The petitioner sought to quash this termination and requested a fresh hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the petitioner's explanation for the alleged irregularities, leading to a decision that lacked application of mind.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Deputy Commissioner provided the required notice and opportunity to be heard, and whether the Mines Commissioner properly considered the petitioner's explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-consideration of the petitioner's explanation by the Deputy Commissioner constituted a failure to apply the mind, rendering the termination order arbitrary.
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 16.5.2023 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 57 of 2022 under Rule 63 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 communicated through Memo No. 1546/MC dt. 18.7.2023 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The said Revision had been filed by the petitioner before the Mines Commissioner against the Communication No. 814/M dt. 8.9.2022 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj( Respondent No. 2), whereby the registered mining lease dt. 2.2.2018/20.2.2018 of the petitioner valid for 10 years, has been prematurely terminated.
3. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the Communication No. 814/M dt. 8.9.2022 of the Respondent No. 2 and has further sought a Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a statutory thirty days’ notice afresh under lease deed part IX/ 3 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and provide an opportunity of hearing under Rule 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 before passing fresh reasoned and speaking order.
4. A direction was also sought by the petitioner for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the mining lease hold area and also for restraining the respondents from creating any third part right during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. The admitted case is that the Petitioner was granted a lease deed on 2.2.2018 in relation to Stone minor mineral in the District of Sahebganj for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 10.10.2017 duly executed by 2nd respondent and which was registered on 20.2.2018.
6. Petitioner obtained all statutory clearances required to operate the mine such as an approved mining plan, environment clearance, consent to operate from the competent authorities.
7. Mining plan of the petitioner was approved by the District Mining Officer, Sahebganj on 7.11.2015 and on 6.11.2020. Petitioner also obtained the Environment Clearance on 27.09.2016 from the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Sahebganj and consent to operate was also granted by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 17.5.2022.
8. The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 10.1.2018 renewed the license of the petitioner to possess and use Ammonium Nitrate. Permission dt. 14.1.2019 for use of explosives was also issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization.
9. According to the petitioner, it started lawfully conducting operations with full compliance of all statutory clearances and conditions contained therein to the satisfaction of all statutory authorities.
10. However, on 1.9.2022 the petitioner was issued a notice dt. 26.8.2022 by the 2nd respondents giving the petitioner seven days’ time for removing certain named irregularities in terms of Rule 22 and 27 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004.
11. Petitioner wrote a letter on 3.9.2022 requesting the 2nd respondent to grant 30 days’ time for compliance as mandated by Rule 22 and 27 of the said Rules.
12. But the 2nd respondent on 8.9.2022 passed an order prematurely terminating the mining lease of the petitioner for non-compliance of Rule 22 and 27 of the Rules and an order dated 23.8.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal without issuing 30 days’ notice, which is the mandatory statutory requirement under Rule 27(2) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 read with lease deed part IX/3.
13. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 57 of 2022 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 on 12.10.2022.
14. According to the petitioner, the Mines Commissioner did not list this Revision Application for a long time and so the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 131 of 2023 which was disposed of on 24.1.2023 directing the Mines Commissioner to dis
The failure to consider a party's explanation before adverse action constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the decision arbitrary.
The Deputy Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by terminating a mining lease without proper delegation and violating natural justice principles.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in administrative actions, particularly the right to a hearing and jurisdictional limits post-mineral classification changes.
An authority cannot adjudicate a matter it has previously decided, emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction in administrative law.
The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to follow procedural rules before canceling mining leases, allowing alternative penalties rather than outright cancellations.
State Government framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
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
