GRANDS MINING Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present batch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders contained in Letter No. 1561/M in [W.P.(C) 5118 of 2019], Letter No. 1563/M in [W.P.(C) 5119 of 2019], Letter No. 1562/M in [W.P.(C) No. 5122 of 2019] and Letter No. 1564/M in [W.P.(C) No. 5161 of 2019] all dtd. 16/9/2019, whereby the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why the remaining period of its mining lease pertaining to stone mines be not terminated on the ground of suppression of actual production carried out in its mine and has further been directed to pay penalty for doing illegal mining as well as fine for wrong submission of monthly statement to the extent of Rs.32,67,800.00, Rs.6,84,72,798.00, Rs.50,70,207.00 and Rs.1,47,73,879.00 respectively through online mode within 30 days and to deposit the original copy of the challan in the office of the respondent no. 4 .. the District Mining Officer, Pakur. The petitioner has further been directed to stop the excavation and transportation of mineral with respect to its mining lease area till the petitioner makes the aforesaid payment of the amount of penalty along with fine, which is contrary to the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "JMMC Rules, 2004") and conditions of lease deeds.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the petitioner was granted mining lease for extraction of minor mineral (stone) from the respective mining leased area situated at different plots of Khata No. 56 in Mouza-Golpur, District- Pakur. The lease deeds were also executed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the consent to operate (CTO) permitting the petitioner for carrying out the said mining activities with respect to the concerned mining leased area was given by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 23/5/2016 and was renewed from time to time. The petitioner regularly filed monthly statements in statutory Form-K before the respondent no. 4 in compliance of its statutory obligation under Rule 48(3) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. Earlier, sectional measurement in the petitioner's mines was taken by the officials of the Mining Department of the Government of Jharkhand and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to pay penalty alleging that it had shown excavation of minerals without excavating the same from the concerned mining lease area with an intention to obtain transit challan which was used by it for the purpose of transportation of mineral illegally excavated from some other area. The demands raised by the respondents were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3178 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 3182 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 3186 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 3189 of 2018. The petitioner claimed in the said writ petitions that the measurement in the mining lease area was done in absence of its representative and there were several infirmities in the said measurement. This Court, vide order dtd. 30/8/2018 having found that the impugned demand notices were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, directed the respondents to decide the matter afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned orders contained in abovementioned letters giving rise to filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing the impugned letters, the respondents failed to comply the direction of this Court dtd. 30/8/2018 in its true letter and spirit. It is further submitted that neither single opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 .. the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur nor the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner, rather the impugned letters were issued hurriedly. From bare perusal of the impugned letters all dtd. 16/9/2019, it would be evident that the same have been issued in a pre-judged and pre-decided manner. It has been mentioned in the impugned letters that the work of the sectional measurement was undertaken by the Committee constituted by the respondent no. 2 under the Chairmanship of the respondent no. 3 .. the Additional Collector, Pakur between the period from 6/6/2019 to 31/7/2019. However, the said period mentioned in the impugned letters on the face of it, is incorrect as sectional measurement was not taken during the aforesaid period as would be evident from the earlier communication dtd. 24/7/2019 itself, wherein the respondent no. 4 had informed that a meeting was convened in the office of the respondent no. 3 on 25/7/2019 for discussion on Sectional Measurement Report prepared by the Surveyors. It is further submitted that it has been stated in the impugned letters that on sectional measurement of the mineral excavated by the petitioner, it was found that the mineral excavated from the mining area is lesser than the monthly statements, thus the petitioner illegally excavated minerals from some other areas. However, the said allegation against the petitioner shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2. If the petitioner has made less excavation than the alleged excavation shown in its monthly statements, then in such case how the petitioner can be held guilty of making excavation of such excess mineral from other areas than its mining lease area and utilizing the challan of the mining lease area for transportation of such excess mineral. The petitioner obtained transport challan and utilized the same to the extent of the mineral shown by it in its monthly returns excavated from its mining area and it did not obtain any excess challan. Thus, the first allegation levelled in the impugned order is untenable, both in the facts and in law. Mining challans were being issued to the petitioner by the office of the respondent no. 4 only after verifying the relevant facts relating to excavation of mineral from the mining lease area of the petitioner. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner that it excavated minerals from outside its mining lease area and utilized its transport challan for transportation of the said mineral on the face of it becomes untenable in view of the fact that mining challans were being issued only after proper verification by the office of the respondent no. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is based on the measurement report of the respondent no. 5 .. Surveyor, however, the said measurement report was agreed to be corrected by the concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand in the meeting dtd. 25/7/2019 as evident from the letter no. 1220/M dtd. 26/7/2019 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). In the impugned letters, reference has been made to the provisions of Rule 27(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 as well as Part-IX, Clause 3 of the lease deeds, however, under the said provisions, no such power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner to restrain the petitioner from carrying out mining activity till such time the amount of penalty is not deposited.