- (1.) Seeking quashing of order dated 12-1-2010 in Revision. Case No. 86 of 2009 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and order dated 8-10-2009 passed by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar whereby the prayer for renewal of lease has been rejected and with a further prayer seeking direction upon the respondent-authority to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, on an application submitted by the petitioner in the year, 1999 in prescribed form, for grant of mining lease, an enquiry was conducted by the Halka Karamchari and Circle Officer and the said report was forwarded to the District Mining Officer, Deoghar vide Memo dated 03-2-1999. After due diligence, lease with respect to 5 acres of land in Plot No. 74/P and Plot No. 75 in Jamabandi No. 13 within Mauza Surya, P. S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar for stone quarrying, was granted in favour of the petitioner and a lease deed was registered on 10-6-1999 for a period of 10 years with right to renewal for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- as security besides, usual rent and royalty. In November, 2003, the Government of Jharkhand decided to hand over 17 acres of land under Plot No. 74/P and Plot No. 75 within Surya Mauza to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. When a substantial portion of the lease hold land was encroached by the Navodaya Vidyalaya, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar who ordered an enquiry by the Circle Officer. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar on 14-9-2005. The Circle Officer, in his report found 1.87 acres of land encroached by the Navodaya Vidyalaya. In the meantime, the petitioner fell ill and he was confined to bed and therefore, he could not make application for renewal of mining lease within the stipulated time. A delay of 216 days in submission of renewal application thus occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the application for renewal of mining lease on 16-10-2009 along with all requisite-documents under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The District Mining Officer, however, without issuing any notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing, rejected the renewal application and directed the petitioner to hand over the lease hold area on 15-10-2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 86 of 2009 which was also dismissed vide order dated 12-1-2010.
(3.) Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay of 216 days in submitting the renewal application occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Had the petitioner been given opportunity of hearing, he would have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and therefore, the delay in submitting the renewal application should have been condoned. The Revisional Authority though noticed the medical certificate, the veracity of which has not been doubted nonetheless, the Revision Case No. 86 of 2009 has been dismissed on the ground of casualness of the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1976 AIR(SC) 105".;