NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THESE three cases have interwoven factual background. WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007 Is the origin for the Cont. Case (C) No. 220 of 2007 and WP(C) No. 4302 of 2007. The consideration, discussion and decision in the case of M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007 have the direct bearing on the other two cases. In that view, all the three cases have been heard simultaneously with the consent of the parties and the same are being disposed of by this synchronic order.
(2.) M /s. Thakur Prasad Sao, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007, in his writ petition has sought quashing of the order of the State Government, respondent, dated 2nd March, 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease has been rejected without giving any heed to the order passed by the Central Government dated 5th August, 2005 while allowing the revision application of the petitioner as also the orders earlier passed by this Court on 12th December, 2005 and 5th December, 2006. The petitioner has also sought a direction to renew the lease of the petitioner. The facts stated, in brief, are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business, of mining. (ii) The mining lease of iron -ore was granted to the petitioner on 4.1.1954 for a period of 20 years. (iii) In the year 1974, the licence was renewed for the further period up to 3rd February, 1994. (iv) As per the term of the lease, the petitioner made on application dated 30th January, 1993 for renewal of the mining lease for a further period of 20 years from 4th February, 1994 to 3rd February, 2014. (v) In the meantime, on 13.12.1993, the Forest Department directed the petitioner to stop all mining activities in the lease area with effect from 5.2.1994. (vi) Even though under the relevant rules, the lease was to be deemed to have been extended for a further period till the application for renewal is considered, the petitioner chose to stop the mining operation in view of the directions of the Forest Department. (vii) By order dated 1st September, 2004, the State Government rejected the petitioners application for renewal on the ground that the petitioner did not show any interest in the disposal of the renewal application. (viii) On 17th September, 2004, the State Government took symbolic possession of the leased area. (ix) Aggrieved by the refusal of the State Government to renew the lease, the petitioner filed revision application before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in September, 2004. (x) In the meantime, In pursuance of the order dated 1st September, 2004, the State Government issued notification under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rues on 18th September, 2004, declaring the petitioners leasehold area available for regrant. (xi) The Central Government disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner by order dated 5th August, 2005 setting aside the order dated 1st September, 2004 of the State Government, whereby the application for renewal of the petitioners lease was rejected. The matter was remitted to the State Government for considering the issues afresh. (xii) State Government though intimated the petitioner that its Mining Lease renewal application may be reconsidered without prejudice to what has happened in the past, 11 years have elapsed after the mining activities were stopped by the State Government. (xiii) Against the said order dated 5th August, 2005 in revision, the State Government filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5765 of 2005. (xiv) This Court, by an order dated 12th December, 2005 dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the order, whereby the State Government was directed to decide the petitioners application for renewal of mining lease afresh without being prejudiced by its earlier order of refusal. (xv) On 24th March, 2006, State Government issued notice asking the petitioner to furnish several documents which are required for considering the application for renewal. The petitioner was asked to appear on 8th April, 2006 the date of hearing before the Secretary, Mines with the requisite documents. (xvi) Accordingly, on 8th April. 2006, the petitioner appeared and filed a detailed explanation on all the issues and furnished the documents. (xvii) By letter dated 23rd June, 2006, the Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner asking to appear on 29th July, 2006 for hearing. (xviii) On 29th July, 2006. the petitioner appeared before the Secretary along with senior counsel. The Secretary informed the counsel that he needs some advice from the law department before hearing the petitioner and that the petitioner shall be informed after fixing the date of hearing. (xix) On 2nd August. 2006, the petitioner made a detailed representation to Honble the Chief Minister about the delay in disposal of the renewal application. The Chief Minister asked the authority to review the earlier order. (xx) An opinion was sought on the said order from the Law Department. The Law Secretary opined that the decision could not be reviewed and the letter dated 23rd June, 2006 for hearing on 29th July, 2006 should not have been issued. (xxi) On coming to know about the same, the petitioner sent representations on 27th November. 2006 and 28th November. 2006 requesting for giving opportunity for hearing. (xxii) However, the State Government did not respond to the petitioners representation. (xxiii) The petitioner then filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 7134 of 2006, seeking direction on the State Government to renew the lease expeditiously or to hear the petitioner before taking any decision. (xxiv) On 5th December, 2006, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioners application for renewal of lease after hearing the petitioner within three months after affording opportunity of being heard pursuant to the communication of the respondent dated 23rd June, 2006, if such opportunity was not already allowed. (xxv) The Secretary had also written a note on the file on 29th July, 2006 that before he proceed to hear the case, he needed advice of the Law Department. There was, thus, no hearing on 29th July, 2006 and no date of hearing was fixed thereafter for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (xxvi) After getting the orders of the High Court dated 5th December, 2006, the petitioner made representation dated 11th December, 2006 requesting the State Government to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. (xxvii) To the utter dismay of the petitioner suddenly the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2007 was passed, dismissing the renewal application, without considering the issues afresh as directed by the Central Government and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed by this Court by order dated 5th December, 2006 passed in WP(C) No. 7134 of 2006.
(3.) THE said impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds: (i) The State Government was directed by the Central Government, by the said order dated 5th August, 2005 passed in the revision, to consider some issues afresh and pass an order uninfluenced by the post events. The State Government was not to consider as an open remand taking up all the issues all over again. The matter was remanded for consideration of specific issues. The State Government is allowed to travel beyond the issues specified in the order of revision. (ii) The Central Governments order was upheld by the High Court In the writ petition filed by the State Government challenging the same. But, the State Government contrary to that travelled beyond that and disturbed the issues which were already considered and decided. (iii) The order impugned is in clear breach of the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The notice dated 4th March. 2006 was issued for hearing under Rule 26(3). Through that notice, the petitioner was asked to submit documents and furnish the requisite information on 8th April. 2006. There was no hearing under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules. The said rule requires a hearing by the State Government before rejection of the application for renewal. The mandatory requirement of Rule 26(1) has never been complied with. (iv) Inspite of the direction of this Court, by order dated 5th December, 2006 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the State Government did not give opportunity of hearing and passed the order dismissing the renewal application on 2nd March, 2007. There is clear violation of the order of this Court as well as violation of principles of natural justice. (v) The State Government has neither given opportunity of hearing pursuant to the notice dated 23rd June, 2006 or thereafter nor there was withdrawal of the notice saying that hearing is not necessary. Admittedly there was no hearing on 29th July, 2006. The Secretary needed legal opinion from the law department before any hearing. There was no hearing thereafter. It is blatant violation of the directions of this Court. (vi) The opinion of the law department that no hearing can be given is a gross misinterpretation of the order of the High Court as well as the order of the Central Government. (vii) The State Government has not heard the petitioner as required by Rule 26(1) at any time after the matter was sent back to the State Government by order of remand or the Central Government, so also in spite of the High Court depriving the petitioner of statutory/constitutional right. (viii) The State Government, if decided to reopen the entire matter ought to have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner informing the petitioner the said, decision and affording opportunity to represent themselves as also directed by the High Court by order dated 12th December, 2005 passed in WP(C) No. 7134 of 2006. ;