Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., Deepak Roshan
Hill Movement – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. In this Writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dt. 08.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. According to the petitioner, this order has been communicated to the petitioner through an email dt. 29.09.2023 of the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj.
2. According to the petitioner, in this email, as attachments, show- cause notices dt. 04.01.2022 and 07.02.2022 were enclosed and in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, this is specifically adverted to.
It is contended that the show-cause notices dt. 04.01.2022 and 07.02.2022 were never served on the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order on 08.09.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj.
3. The Writ petition had been filed on 09.01.2024 and was initially listed on 29.04.2024, on which date, it was adjourned to 30.4. 2024.
4. On that day, a Division Bench of this Court recorded an additional ground also pleaded by the petitioner based on Clause (2) to Section 4 A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which authorizes the State Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease.
It is recorded therein that petitioner contended that the
The Deputy Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by terminating a mining lease without proper delegation and violating natural justice principles.
The failure to consider a party's explanation before adverse action constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the decision arbitrary.
Administrative decisions must adhere to principles of natural justice, allowing parties the right to be heard before adverse action is taken.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Penalty order under minor mineral rules by authority lacking jurisdiction is void; quashed and remitted to competent authority for fresh adjudication despite subsequent power conferment.
The court upheld the termination of mining leases under the MMDR Act and MCR, affirming that the actions were justified and complied with natural justice principles.
The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to follow procedural rules before canceling mining leases, allowing alternative penalties rather than outright cancellations.
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 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
