VISHNU KUMAR KHATAR Vs. STATE FB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10-3-1987 passed by respondent-Collector, contained in Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease was rejected and the order dated 26-5-1987, contained in Annexure-2 and 28-7-1987, contained in Annexure-8, passed by respondent-Mines Commissioner, affirming the aforesaid order of rejection.

(2.) Necessary facts for disposal of this writ application are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease in November, 1980 for a period of five years with respect to a stone quarry over an area measuring 17.75 acres comprising of lands of plot Nos. 699 and 700, situate in village Ratanpur in the district of Nawadah. After grant of the lease, the petitioner started carrying on mining operation and out of the aforesaid forest land, nine acres was broken up before coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and mining operation continued thereon. As the period of lease was going to expire, the petitioner filed an application on 22-7-1985 for renewal of the lease. Upon the said application for renewal, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-Assistant Mining Officer under this letter dated 22-11-1985 that respondent-Collector had allowed his application for renewal for a period of five years and the petitioner was directed to deposit the requisite amount which was duly deposited on 2-12-1985, whereafter on 5-12-1985 the petitioner submitted lease deed for the purpose of due execution. Since the deed of lease was not executed by the respondent-Collector, the petitioner moved the respondent-Mines Commissioner, who by his order dated 2-12-1986 passed in Revision Case No. 115 of 1986, contained in Annexure-3, remanded the matter to the respondent-Collector for execution of deed of lease in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent-Collector by his order dated 10-3-1987, contained in Annexure-1 recalled his earlier order by which renewal application was granted and rejected the application for renewal filed by the petitioner on the ground that approval of the Central Government, as required under S. 2 of the Act, was not obtained for renewal of the lease.

(3.) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent-Mines Commissioner, who by his orders dated 26-5-1987, contained in Annexure-2 and 28-7-1987, contained in Annexure-8, upheld the aforesaid order as approval of Central Government, as required under S. 2 of the Act, was not obtained. Hence this writ application.