M.Y.EQBAL - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN 1966 the petitioners applied before the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla for granting mining lease of minor mineral of plot No. 3708 of Village, Baghima. P.O. Baghima, P.S. Palkot, Dist. Gumla. It appears that on application the Circle Officer, Palkot conducted a legal inspection and vide letter dated 8.2.1996 and 29.10.1996 address to respondent No. 4, Assistant Mining Officer reported that the land is outside the forest area. The Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 29.2.1996 and 3.2.1997 informed the Mining Officer that the plot for which the petitioners have applied for mining lease is outside the forest area and further informed that the mining lease could be given to the petitioners. The petitioners case is that after completing all the formalities mining lease in respect of the aforesaid plot was granted in 1996 and lease agreement was executed by the respondents giving the Mining lease for a period of 10 years. However, in 1999 the petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 30.11.1999 from the office of the District Mining Officer, Gumla asking the petitioner to show cause as to why their mining lease be not terminated as the Divisional Forest Officer informed the said authority that the mining area of the petitioners falls within the forest area. Pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioners filed their show cause stating inter alia that the land in question does not fall within the forest area and before granting the lease, no objection from the Forest Department was also issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. The petitioners then received second show cause notice in 2003 whereby the petitioners were again asked to show cause as to how the lease for the rest of the period be not terminated as the Mining area falls under the Forest Area. The petitioners again filed their show cause reiterating that the land does not fall within the forest area. All of a sudden the impugned letters were issued informing the petitioners that the mining lease has been cancelled.
(3.) THE main issue raised by the petitioner in this writ application is that the cancellation of mining lease is illegal and arbitrary in as much as the land does not fall within the Wild Life Sanctuary.;