- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo no. 534 dated 12.5.2004 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand as well as order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Central Government Mining Tribunal by which the revision of the petitioner against the original order has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application on 9.1.1997 in terms of Rule 22(i) of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 for grant of mining lease for the minerals Mica, Feldspar and Quartz over an area of 140 acres of land situated in Mouja Nagri of District Giridih. Petitioner, thereafter, was asked to furnish certain documents vide memo dated 12.3.1997(Annexure-1) under the signature of Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih. It is submitted that petitioner submitted all the documents at his disposal for consideration of his application. Further, it is stated that part of the land was recorded as forest land in the record of revenue and Assistant Mining Officer was directed by the Additional Director, Mines to procure no objection certificate from the forest authorities. Thereafter, Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih confirmed on the basis of the inquiry report that area for which petitioner had applied for mining lease comes beyond the forest area (Annexure-3). Petitioner's factory license was renewed by the Labour Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 208 dated 6.3.2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that his application remained pending for long and only in the year 2000 official correspondence was made directing the petitioner to appear before the authority in support of his claim. As such notices were again served in the year 2003 vide Annexure-4 series. Petitioner, thereafter, moved this Court in W.P.C. No. 6318 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2003 with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease in accordance with law within a period of 3 months. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a representation but his application has been rejected vide letter no. 534 dated 12.5.2004, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application on the ground that petitioner had failed to submit the relevant documents in support of his application. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision before Central Government Mining Tribunal under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960. The aforesaid revision application being 6/4(2004)-R.C.I has also been rejected vide order dated 19.3.2007 which is also impugned in the present writ application. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite submitting documents as required under the Act and Rules, the Original authority as well as Revisional authority have rejected his application for grant of lease of the aforesaid minerals for the area in question. Further, it is submitted that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner while passing the order.
(3.) RESPONDENT - State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit while the Union of India has also supported the order of the Revisional authority contained at Annexure-8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application of the petitioner was considered in accordance with law and it was found that the mining lease application of the petitioner under Rule 26(i) of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 did not fulfill the requirement of furnishing necessary document such as (a) the forest clearance under the Forest Conversion Act, 1980 (b) Land schedule as per rule 22(3)(g) (c) Original village map (d) Financial soundness certificate (e) C.O. Report (f) Area applied for is not a compact block under Section 6(1)C of MMDR Act, 1957 (g) Geological report under Section 5(2) of MMDR Act, 1957 (h) Affidavit for Income Tax & Sales Tax. These documents are necessary under the Act and Rules for consideration of the case of the interested applicant. It is further submitted on the part of the respondent that the petitioner failed to submit these documents either before competent officer of the State Government for consideration of his application for mining lease and also before the Central Government Mining Tribunal.;