Compliance with procedural requirements outlined in mining lease renewal rules is essential before rejecting a renewal application.

M. M. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH this writ petition was listed for admission as the parties have already exchanged their respective affidavits, with consent of both the parties, the matter was heard finally.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 7-12-1982 for mining Quartz and Feldspar from the lease area as per the provisions of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'the petitioner before one year of the expiry of the said lease, filed an application for renewal of the lease along with proof of payment of the renewal fees, in Form 'j' as prescribed under the Rules. It appears that by the order dated 1-2-2006 under Annexure-3, passed by the Under Secretary to Government, the renewal application of the petitioner has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present writ petition.

( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party No. 1 - State of Orissa.

( 4 ) MR. Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drawing our attention to the provisions of rule 26 of the Rules submitted that it would be apparent from the impugned order under Annexure-3 that the Under Secretary to government has recorded that the application for renewal was deficient of certain documents as mentioned in the said order, but nevertheless no notice whatsoever in accordance with Rule 26 (3) of the Rules was issued to the petitioner to make good the deficiency in the application by producing the said documents before the concerned authorities. He further submits that even though in the impugned order, it is stated that notice under Rule 26 (1) of the Rules was issued to the petitioner, affording him with an opportunity of being heard, but as a matter of fact, no such notice of hearing was ever issued to the petitioner. By our order dated 4-7-2006, while directing the matter to be listed on 11-7-2006, learned counsel for the State was directed to produce the records on that date. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned addl. Government Advocate produced the connected records for perusal of the Court. On verifying the same, we found that though the office copy of the notice/letter dated 5-12-2005 intimating the petitioner that as his application is deficient in respect of certain documents as mentioned therein, the same is liable to be rejected and he is required to appear before the Additional Secretary to government, Department of Steel and Mines on 10-1-2006 at 4. 00 p. m. to state his case, but no document/acknowledgment is available in the said record evidencing that the said letter/notice dated 5-12-2005 was served on the petitioner. No doubt, at the top of the said letter "u. C. P. " is indicated which according to the learned Addl. Government Advocate, is mentioned, as the said letter was sent "under Certificate Posting". However, no certificate of the post office showing despatch of the said letter is also available in the said record.

( 5 ) FOR convenience Rule 26 of the said rules is quoted hereunder.

"refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease :- (1) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for. (No. 1 (22)/63-MII, dated 18-7-63 ). (2) An application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease made under Rule 22 or Rule 24a, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Clause (i) of sub-rule 22. (3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is no