The authority must provide adequate reasons for the complete forfeiture of a security deposit, especially when a lesser penalty has been imposed and already paid.

JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Tandon for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner's security deposit to the tune of Rs. 6,13,34,775/- has been ordered to be forfeited and the revisonal order passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Lucknow, respondent no.2 affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate.

3. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner, a registered partnership firm, applied and was granted a lease for a period of five years from 19.03.2018 to 18.03.2023 for mining over plot no.596, Khand No.1 area 16.194 hectares situated in village Basrehi, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun. The lease deed is stated to have been executed on 19.03.2018.

4. A notice, alleging illegal mining by the petitioner, was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue) on 16.08.2018 calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply within 15 days. The reply was submitted on 27.12.2018 denying the allegations in the notice. The same day, the petitioner is also stated to have made an application for surrendering the mining lease on the ground that requisite amounts of minerals were not available for mining. An order was passed by the District Magistrate on 06.02.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,30,000/- upon the petitioner for the aforesaid illegal mining.

5. On 05.03.2019 another notice was issued to the petitioner alleging illegal mining. It is not in dispute that no reply was filed by the petitioner to this notice.

6. Consequently, on 18.04.2019, the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Jalaun at Orai, passed another order imposing penalty of Rs. 15,80,000/- upon the petitioner.

7. Thereafter, by the order dated 25.04.2019, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order rejecting the application for surrender of the lease, the lease itself was cancelled and the security deposit of the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited. The petitioner is thereafter, stated to have challenged the order of the District Magistrate by filing a revision before the State Government under Rule 78 of the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 being Revision No.16(R)/S.M./2022.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the filing of the revision, the petitioner had deposited the entire penalty imposed upon him by the orders dated 06.02.2019 and 18.04.2019 and that this ground was specifically taken in the revision filed by the petitioner. However, the revision has been dismissed.

9. Hence this writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate, insofar, as he forfeits the security deposit. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it is only this part of the order, which was challenged in revision and the order cancelling the lease of the petitioner was not challenged.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order of forfeiture of the security deposit would have been passed without issuing a notice to the petitioner as provided under clause 3.1 of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner, a copy whereof, has been filed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition.

11. The second contention is that there exists no provision for forfeiture of the security deposit and the relevant rules namely, Rule 50, provides for refund of the amount of security deposit except that which is not required to be applied towards any of the purposes mentioned in the rules. This refund is to be made within six months of the determination of the lease.

12. Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 60 of the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, which reads as follows:-

"60. Consequences of contravention of rules and conditions of lease generally:

(1) In case of any breach or contravention by a lessee of any of these rules or conditions and co