JUDGMENT

P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J. — A long term lease was granted to the petitioner under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). That lease enured till 30.6.2003. While the lease was continuing, Annexure-4 notice was issued informing the petitioner that there was default on his part to report about the death of a person in his mining area as contemplated by Rule 14 (6) of the Rules. By Annexure-5, the petitioner-lessee sought to contend that he was not available in the locality for a period of three months, that somebody had trespassed into his mining area without his knowledge and that he had no responsibility for the death that had occurred and that was the reason he had not reported the death. The authority concerned, the Tahasildar, (opposite party No. 1) found the explanation of the petitioner that he was away from the locality for a period of three months, and that a trespasser had entered the mining area unacceptable, especially in the context of the fact that the petitioner had submitted monthly returns as envis¬aged by Rule 14 of the Rules, even for the period in question. The Tahasildar found that there was a clear transgression of Rule 14 (16) of the Rules by the lessee, and consequently, cancelled the lease sanctioned in his favour. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules. The appellate authority, the Sub-Collector, agreed with the Tahasildar in holding that the explanation of the writ petitioner for his failure to report the death was not acceptable and that the petitioner had failed to report the fact of death of a person in the lease-hold. The appellate authority, therefore, held that there was a clear transgression of Rule 14 (16) of the Rules, and the order of cancellation of the lease was justified. Thus, the cancellation of the mining lease was confirmed. It is challenging this appel¬late decision that the writ petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

2. We may now read Rule 14 (16) of the Rules.

“(16) All accidents involving injury or loss of life or loss or damage to property should be reported forthwith to the Collec¬tor of the District.”

In fact, a death had occurred in the lease-hold property of the petitioner, and undoubtedly the death was not reported by the petitioner. Rule 24 of the Rules provides for penalties for violation of the Rules or the conditions of the grant or the consequences arising therefrom. Rule 24 (2) provides that in case of breach of any condition of the lease other than those men¬tioned in Sub-rule (15) of Rule 14, the Competent Authority may give notice of thirty days to the lessee to rectify the defects within the time specified. If the lessee fails to rectify the defects within the specified time, the Competent Authority may cancel the lease and/or levy a penalty not exceeding one thousand Rupees only. When Annexure-4 notice was issued to the petitioner, the lessee admitted his failure to report the death of a stranger in the lease-hold. He attempted to explain the omission by stat¬ing that the death occurred when he was temporarily away from the locality or the village. The person who died was a trespasser or an unauthorised entrant. Though the petitioner explained this fact, same was not accepted by the original authority or by the appellate authority, and we also feel that they were correct in their view, as the petitioner himself filed returns in respect of the period during which the alleged death occurred. But, the fact remains that pursuant to the notice Annexure-4 the petitioner accepted that there was a death and took the plea that he could not intimate the said fact as he was absent during the period in question. It appears to us that Rule 24 (2) contemplates a can¬cellation of the lease after giving notice of thirty days to the lessee to rectify the defects within the time specified, i.e., relating to safety of the mine or the safety of those who are employed for operation