Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The genesis of this litigation is a inter -se dispute between the persons who claim to be partner of reconstituted firm. The petitioner firm, now represented through lady wife seek annulment of transfer of the lease of Minor Mineral (Stone quarry) executed by the same firm on permission from the competent authority of the State but through the 2 partners, Alok Talukdar, her husband and Somnath Karmakar. The said challenge has been declined by the Revisional authority, Court of Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 58 of 2012 by order dated 6.10.2015 impugned here in bearing memo No. 946 dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure -6). The Mines Commissioner after hearing the parties and after obtaining report from the District Mining Officer, Deoghar and private respondent has proceeded to hold that revision is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 62 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as the petitioner was not a party in the grant and transfer of the said lease. The reconstitution of the partnership deed of the firm is a civil dispute which cannot be resolved before this Court of Mines Commissioner. He therefore refused to revoke the transfer deed of mining lease.
(3.) The brief facts sans unnecessary details are being referred herein after for arriving at adjudication on issue involved. M/s. Kali Agro Chemicals Ltd was the original lessee of the minor mineral situate at plot No. 446 Mauza -Barguina, District Deoghar entered on 15.9.2000 for a period of 10 years. The lease was transferred by M/s. Kali Agro Chemicals Ltd. in favour of M/s. Joysri Enterprises on 13.5.2008. It is not in dispute that M/s. Joysri Enterprises on 13.5.2008 comprised of two partner, Alok Talukdar and Somnath Karmakar as per the partnership deed dated 1.4.2007. The lease was to expire on 14.9.2010. These two partners applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for renewal of the lease dead and was accordingly granted on 15.9.2010. These two partners executed the lease deed with the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 11.9.2011 in the name of M/s. Joysri Enterprises for a period of 10 years up to 14.9.2020. These two partners applied for transfer of the mining lease for the rest of the period in favour of the private respondent on 27.9.2011, which is at page 85 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar approved the transfer of the lease on 14.10.2011 in terms of Rule 24 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which was communicated by the District Mining Officer through memo bearing No. 1112 dated 15.10.2011 (Annexure -R4/D to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4). Consequent to the approval of transfer, these two partner Alok Talukdar and Somnath Karmakar executed the deed of transfer on behalf of the firm on 17.10.2011 in favour of the private respondent, which is at Annexure -V to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. These two partners also got refund of the security deposit in the form of National Savings Certificates on their application after execution of the deed of transfer in favour of the private respondent. The firm M/s. Joysri Enterprises thereafter through one Joly Talukdar @ Joly Majumdar, daughter of Late Satya Ranjan Majumdar instituted revision case No. 58 of 2012 alleging that the transfer of the lease has been effected without the consent of all the partners. It was alleged that M/s. Joysri Enterprises partnership firm got reconstituted with 4 partners, two original i.e. Alok Talukdar and Somnath Karmakar and two new partners i.e. Joly Talukdar @ Joly Majumdar and Savtia Majumdar. These reconstitution of the firm was said to have made on 1.4.2009 and it is stated that intimation of the reconstitution was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. This factum of intimation of reconstitution of the firm with 4 partners has been specifically denied by the State respondent in their counter affidavit at para 15 and 19 after due enquiry.;