SANJEEV BHASKAR Vs. MINES TRIBUNAL GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition (Civil) No. 8033 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 7th November 2001 passed by the Mines Tribunal, Ministry of Mines, Government of India (,,Mines Tribunal) dismissing the Petitioners Revision Application No. 16/8/99-RC-II which challenged the order dated 21st April 1999 passed by the Department of Mineral Resources, State Government of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No. 2).

(2.) WRIT Petition (Civil) No. 5809 of 2004 is by the same Petitioner, challenging an order dated 31st December 2002 passed by the Mines Tribunal in Revision Application No. 16(26)/99-RC-II filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30th July 1999 passed by the Department of Mineral Resources, State Government of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No. 2) granting a mining lease (ML) of an area of five hectares of the area in question in favour of the M.P. State Mining Corporation (Respondent No. 3). Background Facts

(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforementioned petition, the Petitioners father died on 7th September 1982. The case of the Petitioner is that at that time the lease deed continued to subsist. It appears that by an order dated 16th December 1982 in Misc. Application No. 805 of 1981 the Petitioners father was substituted by his five legal heirs, including the Petitioner herein. The said petition was ultimately disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by an order dated 16th July 1986 which reads as under: "The petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of 220 years commencing from 4.11.1965 over an area of 11.33 hectares in village Kari, Tahsil and District Tikamgarh. A notice (Annexure J) dated 18.9.79 was given to the petitioner by the Collector Tikamgarh to show cause as to why his mining lease should not be revoked on the ground of certain breaches committed by him which were discovered in the inspection made by the Mining Inspector on 28.5.79. The petitioner gives a reply dated 3.10.1979 to this notice denying the alleged breaches in the conditions of the lease as well as the rules which are applicable. Thereafter, by order dated 5.4.80 (Annexure L) passed by the State Government, the lease was determined in accordance with rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, on the ground of contravention of clause (f) and (g) of sub-rule (1) of the rule 27. The petitioners revision to the Central Government under rule 54, read with section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 has ultimately been dismissed by order (Annexure o) dt. 6.4.81. Hence this petition. 2. From the impugned orders of the State Govt., Central Govt., and also the stand taken by the respondents in this petition, it appears that determination of the petitioners lease is only on account of breach of the conditions of the lease contained in clauses (f) and (g) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. These clauses require the lessee to commence the mining operation within one year from the date of execution of the lease unless the State Govt., for sufficient cause, permits otherwise. Clause (g) requires the lessee at his own expenses, to erect and maintain and keep in good repair the boundary marks and pillars necessary to indicate the demarcation of his area. It has been held that the petitioner had committed breach of both these conditions. So far as clause (f) in concerned, it relates to commencing mining operations within one year from the date of execution of lease, but there is no finding by any of these authorities that the petitioner did not commence mining operation within one year from the date of execution of the lease. Even in the show cause notice, no such ground is mentioned. 3. The other ground relates to erection and maintenance of boundary marks and pillars. The show cause notice details the breaches of the basis of the Mining Inspectors inspection made on 28.5.79 and mentions this as one of the breaches committed by the petitioner. However, the Collector, by his order dated 27.7.79 (Annexure G), had issued a direction to all the lessees in the area to have their areas re-demarcated according to the direction given in the order. In such a situation, the order dated 27.7.79, passed by the Collector, subsequent to the Mining Inspectors inspection made on 28.5.79 was required to be noticed and its effect also examined before reaching the conclusion that the lease was liable to be terminated on this ground. The impugned orders do not disclose that this aspect was taken into account. Accordingly it follows that all the relevant circumstances were not taken into account before making the impugned orders and that the requisite findings for supporting the conclusion of breach of the aforesaid conditions contained in clauses (f) and (g) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 have not been recorded. For this reason, determination of the lease by the State Govt., and dismissal of the revision by the Central Govt. cannot be upheld. The matter has to be re-examined and decided afresh by the State Government. 4. Consequently the petition allowed. The impugned orders of the State Govt. and Central Govt. are quashed. The State Govt. shall decide afresh the question of determination of the petitioners lease in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioners. Sd/- Sd/- Chief Justice Judge 16-7-86 16-7-86"