AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) COMMON question on similar facts are involved in both the writ petitions and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts of WP(C) No. 2222 OF 2005 are as follows: It appears that Stone Mining Lease over two Acres of land situating on Plot Nos. 649, 650, 652, 653 and 654 in Mouza Kulkulidanga in the District of Durnka was granted in favour of the petitioner for 5 years in the year 1994 which was subsequently renewed for 10 years i.e. for the period 11.09.1999 to 11.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Durnka, by order dated 29.05.2004, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner which according to the petitioner, is bad as it was done without initiating any proceedings as contemplated u/s. 4(1) or Sec. 4A(3) and Sec. 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules 40(1) and of theB ihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 . The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 29.05.2004. The Mines Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 02.02.05/09.03.05 as contained In Annexure -1 to the writ petition, dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. According to the State Respondents, though the aforesaid lease was granted with respect to State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) And Ors. Versus Hari Lal those Plots and the lease was continuing up to 11.09.2009 but the District Mining Officer, Dumka on consideration of the fact that the Mines Inspector had made measurement of the leasehold area In presence of the petitioner's representative and found that the petitioner was doing illegal mining over the 0.87 Acres outside the leasehold area and had extracted 37845 Sq. Ft. of stone illegally, gave notice to the petitioner under Rule 24(5) of the Mines Rules alleging therein that the petitioner was doing illegal mining outside the leasehold area. Then after, the petitioner was also given notice to show -cause as well as for making payment for the cost of stone which was extracted illegally outside the leasehold area The petitioner neither paid the amount nor filed any show -cause and hereafter, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the lease of the petitione for the rest of the period on the ground that the petitioner was doing illegal mining outside the leasehold area. The facts of WP(C) No. 2261 of 2005 are as follow: The husband of the petitioner No.1 namely Mrinal Kanti Nandy was granted Stone Mining Lease on Plot No. 390 in Mouza Kulkulidanga in the District of Dumka measuring over 1.30 Acres for the periods 08.12.2003 to 07.12.2003 for a period of ten years. Mrinal Kanti Nandy submitted an application for renewal of the mining lease on 01.09.2003 but the said renewal application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide order dated 22.02 2004 on the ground that the petitioner was working outside the leasehold area after encroaching over 0.80 Acres of land in excess and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the lease area to the Mines Inspector. According to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, by order dated 22.02.2004, illegally and prematurely cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner without Initiating any proceedings as contemplated u/s. 4(1) or Sec. 4A(3) and Sec. 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules 40(1) and 8 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972. The petitioners, thereafter, filed revision before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, who by order dated 02.02.05 as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition, dismissed the revision and up -held the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. According to the State Respondents, the petitioners extracted illegal stone to the tune of Rs. 9,96,027/ - and therefore, a demand notice vide letter dated 19.04.2004 was sent to the petitioner. Before issuance of such demand notice, the enquiry was made by the District Mining Officer and it was found that the petitioner, by making encroachment, was doing illegal mining outside the leas .hold area. The Mining Inspector, after measuring the area, had submitted a report to the District Mining Officer on the basis of which, action was taken against the petitioner. It is also stated that a proceeding for recovery of the amount as contained in the demand notice, was also initiated against the petitioners by initiating a Certificate Proceeding.
(3.) MR . R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that cancellation of the mining lease, without initiating any proceeding against petitioner and without giving a chance to them for hearing, is violative of principles of natural justice.;