- (1.) Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment dated 21.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C No.2967 of 2009 (R) which reads as under: "In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 17th August, 1999 passed by the respondent No.2 in Koderma Certificate Revision No.103 of 1997 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to dismiss the said certificate revision filed on behalf of the petitioner which revision was filed against the order dated 30th September, 1996 passed in Certificate Appeal No.9 of 1993 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order passed by the Certificate Officer dated 15.12.1992 in Certificate Case No.1 of 1992-93 had been dismissed. The petitioner further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the concerned respondents from giving effect to or acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said impugned orders. This is a case where all the three authorities below have given a concurrent finding and the short point in issue to be decided by this Court is as to whether under Rule 24 of the Mineral Concessions Rule read with Form-J is to be treated as fresh lease or renewal of lease for the purposes of computing the rates payable depending upon the age. The second issue is with regard to Columns 3 of the rate schedule and the particular reference is to the word `onwards' and as to how it has to be interpreted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this has to be treated as fresh lease for the reason that Form F pre supposes it to be a fresh lease. The second contention raised is that the word `onwards' in the schedule of rates will be confined to 20 years and thus even otherwise it has to be treated as a fresh lease. The contention raised by the petitioner does not appear to be correct for more than one reason. The categories and the rate of dead rent applicable as per the notification issued under Section 9A of M.M.R.D. Act, 1957 in the 5th column of the notification the word used is `onwards' which reflects the age and continuity of the lease. The lease was granted initially from 1961 to 1981 and was renewed for another 20 years i.e. from 1981 to 2001. Hence, the period of calculation will be from 21st to 40 years and not from one year to 20 years. It is not a case where the petitioner stopped the mining activity instead in continued with the mining activity till the renewal of the lease. Even otherwise dead rent is payable as per the 3rd Schedule of Section 9A of the M.M.R.D. Act, 1957. The Central Government is the competent authority to revise the same from time to time. In any event, Form K does not apply in this case for the reason that it is covered under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which is for a fresh lease whereas Under Rule 24 provides for renewal of lease and the form prescribed is Form J that clearly specifies the word renewal. Even otherwise, the agreement entered into also prescribes the rate agreed upon and thus the writ petition cannot be entertained.. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of concurrent findings, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and the same is accordingly dismissed."
(2.) We do not find in infirmity in the impugned judgment inasmuch the matter is regulated by the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act and Mineral Concessions Rules. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
(3.) So far filing of Form J and K is concerned, that will be governed by the rules.;