- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 dated 18th July, 2009 at Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby, the revision application, preferred by the present petitioner, under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 (in short 'The Rules, 2004') has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner was granted mining lease in the year, 1993 for ten years. As the lease period was completed in the year, 2003, a renewal application was preferred in time, but, the concerned respondent authorities had not decided the said application and sat tight upon the application. Against in action on the part of the respondent authorities, revision application was preferred being Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 and an order was passed by the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 17th September, 2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition) and the matter was remanded for its fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj has decided the renewal application, preferred by the present petitioner, vide order dated 12th April, 2006 at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Lease was renewed for further period for ten years, but, again the documents of the lease could not be executed and looking to the deeming provision enshrined in Rule 28 of the Rules, 2004, again, what was granted is deemed to have been cancelled and again, because of this in action on the part of the respondents authorities, a fresh renewal application bearing Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 was instituted before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, who has dismissed the said revision application vide order dated 18th July, 2009 (Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner) without any application of mind and without assigning reasons, whatsoever. This second revision application no. 113 of 2008 has been brushed aside only on the ground that earlier Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 was decided. It appears that the revisional authority has not taken any care to look at the earlier order passed in Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 dated 17th September, 2005, which was altogether for a different aspect of the matter. Earlier, the State authorities had not decided the renewal application and therefore, the revision application was preferred. In the facts of the present case, revision application no. 113 of 2008 was instituted mainly for the reason that after renewal of the lease by order at Annexure-2, the lease agreement was never executed. Both things are absolutely separate and independent to each other. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and let matter be remanded back for its fresh decision, within stipulated time, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to its representative.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that all faults lie upon the petitioner for non execution of the renewal lease agreement and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, is absolutely in consonance with the facts and law and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;