HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
V. GOPALA GOWDA, B.N. MAHAPATRA, JJ.
M/s. K.P. Granite Industries and another …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others …. Opp. parties
W.P.(C) No. 28746 of 2011
Decided on : 04.12.2012
Mining Lease - Cancellation - Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 25(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's mining lease for decorative stone over 6.972 hectares was cancelled by the Department of Steel and Mines on the ground of non-working for a continuous period of two years, in violation of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not work upon the lease for a continuous period of two years and that reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided before the cancellation of the lease. The court also held that the cancellation was in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the OMMC Rules, 2004.
Issues: (i) Whether reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the cancellation of the mining lease? (ii) Whether the authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioner as provided in sub-rule (7) of Rule 68 before passing the cancellation order? (iii) Whether the cancellation of the lease and the lease agreement is valid in view of the mandatory provision of sub-rule(5) of Rule 25 of Rules, 2004?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not work upon the lease for a continuous period of two years and that reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided before the cancellation of the lease. The court also found that the cancellation was in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the OMMC Rules, 2004.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, without costs.
JUDGMENT
B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order/proceeding dated 22.09.2011 passed/drawn in the Department of Steel and Mines under Annexure-11 whereby the mining lease granted vide Proceeding No. 8418/SM, dated 22.8.2005 and mining lease executed on 14.02.2006 for decorative stone over an area of 6.972 hectares in village Andhrajholi of Gajapati district in favour of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, outcome of colourable exercise of power in violation of principles of natural justice and in contravention of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2004’).
2. Petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that petitioner no.1-firm was mainly engaged in mining of decorative stone and related activities. Petitioner no.2 is the Managing partner of petitioner no.1-firm. On 30.4.2004, petitioner no.1-firm applied for a mining lease of decorative stone over an area of 30.865 hectares in village Andharijholi in the district of Gajapati before opposite party no.1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Bhubaneswar under Rule 15 of the Rules, 2004. Opposite party no.2-Director of Mines, Odisha forwarded the said mining lease application of petitioner no.1-firm to the State Government on 5.7.2004 with the recommendation for grant of mining lease over an area of 26.325 hectares. On 18.10.2004, Government of Odisha-opposite party no.1 issued terms and conditions for grant of mining lease over an area of 26.325 hectares, which was accepted by the petitioner-firm on 20.10.2004. Upon acceptance of terms and conditions by the petitioner-firm, the Govt. of Orissa-opp. Party no.1 issued the order granting mining lease for decorative stone over 26.325 hectares in village Andharijholi in the District of Gajapati in favour of the petitioner-firm for a period of 10 years vide proceeding No. 11795 dated 31.12.2004. Pursuant to grant of mining lease by the State Government on 31.12.2004, opp. Party no.2 vide letter dated 19.1.2005 directed opposite party no.3 to execute the mining lease deed with petitioner-firm. Upon a joint inspection, the mining lease area was demarcated by the officials of the Mining, Revenue and Forest Department on 19.4.2005. On such inspection it was found that the granted mining lease area contains cashew trees and other unclassified and bushy growth for which recommendation was made by the inspecting team for deletion of the vegetated area and to grant mining lease over an area of 6.972 hectares out of 26.325 hectares. The joint inspection report dated 19.4.2005 was forwarded by the Director of Mines-opp. Party no.2 on 2.5.2005 to the State Government with the recommendation to consider grant of mining lease over a reduced area of 6.972 hectares. Since no action was taken by the State Government to execute the lease deed with the petitioner-firm, the latter filed writ petition bearing W.P.(c) No. 4331 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of on 25.4.2005 with a direction to the petitioner-firm to produce the writ petition with all annexures before opp. Party no.2-Director, Mines which shall be treated as a representation and opp. Party no.2 was directed to consider the said representation for due compliance of order dated 19.1.2005 of opp. Party no.2.
3. On 22.8.2005, opp. Party no.1 in supersession of its earlier order dated 31.12.2004 has granted mining lease for decorative stone over an area of 6.972 hectares out of the earlier granted area of 26.325 hectares and directed petitioner no.1-firm to submit Mining Plan. The Mining Plan in respect of the mining lease was approved by opp. Party no.2 on 27.1.2006. The mining lease deed was executed on 13.2.2006 in Form-H as provided under Rule 61(1) of the Rules, 2004, which was registered on 14.2.2006. Part-II of the mining lease deed executed on 13.2.2006
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.