- (1.) This writ petition is against the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, two decisions have been taken; (I) Firstly the lease agreement over an area of 239.99 hectare for mining iron ore has been terminated. (II) And secondly the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of leasehold area within 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order, in favour of District Mining Officer, Chaibasa.
(2.) Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner on following grounds have assailed the impugned order:- (i) Under the provision of Rule 12(10) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, it has been stipulated that in case of violation of condition, stipulated under Section 9 , or Section 9(A) or Section 9(B) or Section 9(C) or Rule-13 of Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 or commits a breach of any of the condition stipulated in Sub-Rule 1, 2, 3 and 4, the State Government shall give notice to the lessee, requiring him to pay the violative or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice, and if the royalty or dead rent is not paid or the breach is not remedy within the said period, the State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceeding, that may be taken against him, terminate the lease and hold the whole or part of the performance security. It has been argued by referring to the impugned order that the aforesaid order itself stipulates that the notice, in terms of the Provision of Rule 12(10) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, giving therein 60 days statutory time, has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa and therefore, he is having no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice and, hence, on this ground alone, the very initiation of proceeding is in violation of the provision of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. (ii) The notice has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, but the Member, Board of Revenue has been delegated with the power to look into the alleged irregularities and on the basis of the report, submitted by it, the State Government has taken decision (impugned), hence, there is no compliance of the Principle of natural justice in view of the settled position of law that if an authority is issuing notice, it is incumbent upon the said authority to take final decision, then only it can be said that the proper appreciation of the factual aspect and having not done so, the same will be said to be in violation of Principle of natural justice, reason being that the Principle of natural justice is to be observed for appreciation of the factual aspects, which is valuable right of a party, against whom, any adverse decision has been proposed to be taken, otherwise it will be said to be sheer formality. According to the petitioner, in the instant case, show-cause has been issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa and heard by the Board of Revenue and final decision has been taken by the Department of Mining and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand and, therefore, the proper appreciation of facts have not been made. (iii) The petitioner has not supplied with the copy of the finding given by the Board of Revenue, therefore, a valuable right to cross the adverse finding has been denied to the petitioner (iv) The ground, upon which, the decision has been taken is vague and non-est.
(3.) Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General representing the State by referring to the background of the case that a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 534 of 2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499, while dismissing the writ petition has declined to issue direction upon the respondent-State to issue Transit challans to the petitioner, against which, intra Court, being L.P.A. No.351 of 2018, as has been preferred by the petitioner, which is lying pending before this Court, an order has been passed, directing the petitioner to deposit the required amount for issuance of Transit permits/challans, but at paragraph-10 of the aforesaid order, it has been stipulated that to the effect that rest of the conditions for issuance of Transit permits/challans shall be applicable in the facts of the case like validity of very type of licence, permit, clearance etc., therefore, the petitioner is required to abide by the conditions which is pre-requisite for issuance of challans.;