ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 24.01.2020 passed by the respondent No. 1/the State of Madhya Pradesh, 31.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.2/The Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining; and 24.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.3/Collector, District Chhatarpur, whereby quarry lease granted has been cancelled and the appeals preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as follows:-

The petitioner, M/s Golden Stones, is a registered Partnership Firm engaged in quarry operations. The petitioner was granted a quarry lease over land admeasuring 4.00 Hectares situated at Khasra No.1348, Gram Prakash Bamhauri, Tehsil Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur, M.P., for the extraction of “Stone for making Gitti by Mechanical Crushing” by order dated 09.03.2011. Pursuant thereto, a lease agreement was executed on 23.03.2011 for a period of ten years.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite execution of the lease agreement, possession of the leased area was never handed over to it by the respondent No.3. The petitioner made representations seeking delivery of possession, but no action was taken by the authorities. After execution of the aforesaid agreement, environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) became mandatory pursuant to directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 629.

4. The petitioner applied for environmental clearance on 14.12.2012 and informed the respondent authorities accordingly. While the petitioner was waiting for possession and environmental clearance, the respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice dated 12.03.2014 alleging non-payment of dead rent, royalty and surface rent, non-submission of statutory returns, non-erection of boundary marks, and other alleged violations of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 22.04.2014 stating that since no mining activity had commenced as possession of the leased land had not been delivered, and therefore the alleged violations were not attracted. Thereafter, no immediate action was taken by the respondents.

5. After a lapse of nearly four years, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 24.02.2018 cancelling the lease under Rule 30(26) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. The petitioner contends that the cancellation order refers to a show-cause notice dated 29.11.2012, which was never issued, and that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are different from those contained in the show-cause notice dated 12.03.2014. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 57(2) of the Rules, 1996 before the respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, a second appeal under Rule 57(3) was preferred before the respondent No.1, which was also dismissed by order dated 24.01.2020.

6. The petitioner submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. It is further contended that possession of the leased area was never delivered and therefore, statutory obligations could not have arisen in the absence thereof. The petitioner had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No.8957 of 2020. The said petition was dismissed on 30.09.2020 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Hence, the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.3, cancelling the lease, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. It is submitted that though the lease agreement was executed on 23.03.2011, possession of the leased area was never handed over to th