S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order contained in letter dated. 3.9.2014 whereby, the lease granted to the petitioner for Magnesium Silicate (Pyroxenite) for an of area 4.49 hectares in mauza Gamharkocha. Ghatshila, District -East Singhbhum for a period of 20 years with effect from 31.1.2001 has been terminated, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that, a lease -deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondent -State of Jharkhand on 31.1.2001. A show -cause notice dated 28.4.2014 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation of illegal mining and non -payment of an amount of Rs. 8,69,47,192.00/ - which the petitioner allegedly refused to accept. A notice through publication in the newspaper was issued thereafter, on 18.7.2014. The petitioner appeared on 25.7.2014 and sought 30 days time for filing reply to the show cause notice dated 28.4.2014 however, vide impugned order contained in letter dated 3.9.2014, the lease with respect to Magnesium Silicate (Pyroxenite) was cancelled, Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that several notices were issued to the petitioner alleging violation of various provisions of the mining lease. The petitioner was issued show -cause notice on 28.4.2014 however, he refused to receive the same and therefore, the said notice was pasted at his residence. A notice through paper publication was also issued on 18.7.2014 still, the petitioner did not submit his explanation and therefore, vide order contained in letter dated 3.9.2014 terminating of lease was communicated to the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of notice dated 28.4.2014 would indicate that the said notice was sent at a wrong address. The lease -deed executed between the parties on 31.1.2001 mentions the correct address of the petitioner however, the show -cause notice dated 28.4.2014 was sent at a different address. The allegation that the petitioner refused to accept the notice is apparently incorrect inasmuch as, the address, disclosed in the show -cause notice dated 28.4.2014 is a different address. It is further submitted that immediately after coming to know, about the proceeding initiated by the respondents, through notice issued on 18.7.2014 in the daily newspaper, the petitioner appeared before the Secretary, Department of Mines on 25.7.2014 and sought 30 days; time for filing reply however, the request of the petitioner has been declined and the impugned order contained in letter dated 3.9.2014 has been passed in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. It is further submitted that in so far as, the payment of amount of Rs. 8,68,47,192.00/ - is concerned, the petitioner may be liable to make payment of royalty etc. however, on the ground of non -payment of royalty dues a lease -deed cannot be cancelled without giving 60 days' notice for payment which admittedly has not been given to the petitioner. It is thus, submitted that the matter is required to be heard by the Secretary, Department of Mines afresh and an opportunity should be given to the petitioner for putting forth his defence for subsistence/continuance of lease deed dated 31.1.2001.
(3.) REITERATING the stand taken in the counter -affidavit, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P. -V appearing on behalf of the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, the petitioner is guilty of laches and delay in appearing before the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner however, the petitioner did not submit his reply and therefore, constrained, order dated 3.9.2014 was passed terminating the lease deed dated 31.1.2001.;