- (1.) HEARD Shri Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to SC (Mines for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) in Revision Case No. 79 of 2003, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.7.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (Respondent No. 3) prematurely cancelling the petitioner's mining lease, was dismissed.. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's lease has been cancelled without giving any prior notice to him, nor any opportunity of being heard and furthermore, such order of cancellation has been passed on the basis of some office note put up by the Assistant Mining Officer which appears to have been cryptically accepted by the Deputy Commissioner without application of mine and likewise, the Revisional Authority has also dismissed the revision without appreciating the legal issue raised by the petitioner including the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard.
(3.) FROM the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it appears that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the petitioner's mining lease was cancelled and neither in the order of the Revisional Authority. It is sought to be explained that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and several other mining lease holders when it was found that they were using explosive substance in their mining operations without obtaining the requisite licence for use of explosives. Investigation report confirmed that the petitioner and several other mining lease holders had committed the offence and on the basis of charge sheet, they were criminally prosecuted. On the basis of the investigation report, decision taken was taken by the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the mining lease of the petitioner.;