- (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter No. 192/M dated 31.01.2012, issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa (respondent no. 5), whereby and whereunder the mining license of the petitioner has been cancelled for the rest of the period and it has been directed to return all the transport challans.
(2.) IT has been stated that the impugned order is cryptic, non speaking and mechanical and there is nothing in the impugned order to show that petitioner's explanation given in response to the show cause was considered by the District Mining Officer. It has been further stated that the licensee acquires the right to do business on the basis of that license and the said valuable right has been taken away arbitrarily by the said mechanical order. The petitioner had filed a detailed show cause reply denying the allegation against him but the same has not been considered and no reason has been recorded for holding the reply to the show cause as baseless. 2011 (2) JCR 462 (Jhr)} 5. The respondents have contested this writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner is guilty of contravention of terms and conditions of the license as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ application. The petitioner's license has been cancelled only after the said contravention has been found. 6. It has been further stated that the said order has been issued after giving appropriate notice and considering show cause reply filed by the petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 31.01.2012 contained in Annexure -5, I find that there is one sentence order containing that the show cause reply filed by the petitioner is false and baseless and the same cannot be accepted. No reason has been assigned for coming to the said conclusion. It is an admitted fact that against the show cause notice, the petitioner had filed a reply. But the impugned order is completely silent on the grounds taken in the reply and the material available on record for holding the reply false and baseless. 8. The respondents are the public officer of a welfare State and action taken or order passed by them must conform to the principles at reasonableness, fairness and the natural justice. Any order affecting a person's' valuable right must be in accordance with law and inconsonance with the rule of natural justice. 9. On reading of the impugned order, it is not possible to find out the reason, on the basis of which the petitioner's explanation has been rejected and its license has been cancelled. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The order issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa (respondent no.5) by his letter no. 192/M dated 31.01.2012 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum (respondent no. 4) for fresh consideration of the petitioner's show cause/explanation and disposal of the matter in accordance with the law and in conformity with the principle of natural justice.;