- (1.) The petitioner's predecessor in -interest was granted mining lease of Iron Ore over an area of 41.639 Hectares in village Rajabera of District West Singhbhum on 29th February, 1988 (Annexure -1) for a period of 20 years effective from 29 th February 1988 till 28th February 2008. Lease was transferred with the permission of the State Government in favour of the present petitioner on 2 nd March, 1997 (Annexure -2). Before expiry of the statutory period of 12 months prior to expiry of lease, he made an application for renewal on 23 rd February, 2007. The application for renewal remained pending. In the meantime, a show -cause was issued upon the lessee on 15 th June, 2015 (Annexure -9). Petitioner replied to the show -cause notice on 29 th June, 2015 (Annexure -10). A second show -cause notice was also furnished on 31st July, 2015 (Annexure -11) to which he submitted his reply on 19th August, 2015. Inter Departmental Committee constituted by the State Government heard the petitioner on 24.08.2015 and finally by the impugned order dated 1st April, 2016 bearing memo no.884/M (Annexure -13) the application for extension of the lease has been rejected. Petitioner has approached this Court against the said order of rejection. He has also questioned the constitution of Inter Departmental Committee vide notification dated 9.6.2015 as beyond the power conferred upon the State Government by the MMDR Act, 1957 (Section 26(2) and Section 28(3) MMDR Act). Petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the mining lease granted on 29th February, 1988 should be deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years w.e.f. the said date in terms of Section 8A(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015. Petitioner's has also made a prayer for quashing the show -cause notice and for setting aside the notification bearing no.257 dated 18 th April, 2016 published in the official gazette on 20 th April, 2016 by which the mines of the petitioner has been notified for auction in terms of Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that mining lease was not under operation since 2011. He further submits that the approval of the mining plan has been made lastly on 23 rd April 2015 vide Annexure -A -5/1 with validity up to 31st March, 2018. The made on 22 nd June, 2015 application for environmental clearance (Annexure A/6) is still pending. He has made an application for grant of consent to operate from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (Annexure -A/8) which has remained pending for want of environmental clearance. These statutory clearances are required to be obtained by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 41.639 Hectares of the leasehold land, only 4.67 Hectares is reported to be a Jangal -Jhari and therefore deemed to be forest land. No mining operation has been carried out in the said area. It is also pointed out that in the 1st and 2nd show -cause notices, no such ground was taken, rather the Government of Jharkhand has stated that the leasehold area is a non -forest area. However, the petitioner, if required, would obtain forest clearance and would not undertake to work on forest area without obtaining the statutory clearance. It is further stated that up to date royalty clearance certificate dated 13th April, 2014 has been issued by the District Mining Officer and the same was submitted along with its reply. Petitioner contends that allegation relating to violation of Ministry of Mines' letter no.F.No.10/75 /2008 -MV issued under Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 regarding mineral exploration was never made in the show -cause notice. However, exploration has been done and it forms part of the mining scheme which was approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India dated 4th April, 2016, the allegation relating to violation of Rule 28/28A of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 relating to lapse of mining lease are no longer available to be taken as there is no such order or declaration by the State Government before 12th January, 2015. In respect of the allegation relating to violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, It is submitted that no dues certificate has been submitted on 24th May, 2015. The demand of surface rent has been quashed by this Court and the matter is pending in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Charges relating to excess mining are also subject matter of W.P.(C) No.1524/2013. In respect of the violation relating to para -2 of Part -VII of Form 'K', it is submitted that the Government approved surveyor namely Gem Surveyors has been issued work order to undertake survey which has also been concluded. Pillars, corner pillars and intermediate lease boundary pillars are already in place and discrepancy, if any, would be rectified. So far as allegation of violation of para -11(c) of Part -VII of Form 'K' is concerned, it is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.1524/2013. Petitioner has questioned the demand as being without jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner further has pointed out in respect of allegation of violation of Para -18 of Part -VII of Form 'K' that the said allegations are unfounded. The lease is a non -captive lease and there is no restriction under law that the ore cannot be sold to one person. Therefore, there is no violation of any provision of the lease deed or the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In respect of violations observed by Justice M.B. Shah Commission on the aforesaid lease, it has been submitted that no mining operations have been carried out in contravention of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. All mining operations have been stopped since 2011 for this reason only. Environmental clearance has already been applied for and terms of reference have already been granted. Only thereafter, the petitioner can carry the mining operation. The allegation relating to difference in monthly return filed by lessee are vague. No details have been given in respect of as to in which monthly return, there was a difference in figures of IBM and DMG.;