- (1.) The instant intra-court appeal is against the order/judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the revisional authority in Revision Case No.59 of 2004.
(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary to be enumerated herein for the adjudication of the lis are as under : The license to carry out the stone mining has been granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner over an area of 0.82 acres of land situated at Plot No.418, Mouza Kulkulidanga, P.S. Shikaripara, District Dumka for a period of five years with effect from 16.07.1994. The lease was further renewed for a period of 10 years subsequently. The respondent authority has conducted an inspection on 19.01.2004 in which it was found that the appellant/writ petitioner is carrying out mining operation outside the lease area and that no boundary pillars and sign boards have been affixed and as such the amount of Rs.12,94,009.00/- was quantified as the amount of royalty for the alleged mining done outside the lease area. The authority has issued show cause notice on 24.04.2004 which was replied by the appellant/writ petitioner vide reply dated 21.05.2004 and again another reply was sent by post on 12.06.2004 making reference therein about the reply dated 21.05.2004, denying the allegation of carrying out the mining work outside the lease area. The lease granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner subsequently was terminated vide order dated 29.05.2004, communicated vide memo No.1164 dated 16.06.2004. The appellant/writ petitioner had approached before Deputy Commissioner against the order dated 29.05.2004 by which the lease was cancelled prematurely and also against the allegation of conducting mining operation beyond the lease area but the same has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner against which revision was preferred being Revision Case No.59 of 2004 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2005/09.03.2005 against which writ petition has been filed being W.P.(C) No.2613 of 2005, subject matter of the present intra-court appeal, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.09.2018.
(3.) Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact about non-service of the show cause as also about non-consideration of reply submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner on 21.05.2004 and 12.06.2004 discarding the said reply by holding in the impugned order that the show cause reply dated 21.05.2004 cannot be said to be a reply on the ground that no averment to that effect has been made in the writ petition as also the reply dated 21.05.2004 has not been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner while the show cause reply dated 12.06.2004 has been held to be an afterthought and was after passing of the order of cancellation of mining lease by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 29.05.2004 The fact about filing no reply to the show cause is absolutely incorrect since the reply was filed before passing of the order dated 29.05.2004 i.e., on 21.05.2004 which got substantiated even from the subsequent reply dated 12.06.2004 wherein the reference of the show cause reply dated 21.05.2004 has been made. ;