BALRAM KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was granted a mining lease for 10 years on 28.08.2009 upto 27.08.2019, and the same was registered on 10.09.2009, in respect of Gata No. 2/4 (area 4 acres) at village Jujhar, Pargana Mahoba, Tahsil & District Mahoba. Petitioner commenced mining operations. On 31.10.2011, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mahoba lodged a complaint before Mining Officer, Mahoba that on account of heavy blasting undertaken by petitioner, damage has been caused to the nearby school building. Pursuant to said complaint, Mining Officer inspected the site on 02.11.2011, whereupon villagers informed that blasting is carried out indiscriminately beyond scheduled period as a result of which atmosphere of fear and uneasy calm prevails. Pursuant thereto a show cause notice dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure-6) was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within a week. Petitioner responded to the show-cause notice on 26.11.2011 by contending that the terms of the lease have not been violated, no building has been damaged. Petitioner also requested that he be supplied copies of inspection reports dated 02.11.2011, 06.11.2011 and 09.11.2011. However, respondent no.4 issued another notice/ order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure-8) alleging that on inspection / survey conducted on 29.11.2011, no Board or sign was found at the site and heavy blasting was detected. It was also alleged that villagers also reported that on account of indiscriminate heavy blasting by petitioner beyond scheduled hours gaping holes were detected, which upon measurement was found to the extent of 7874 cubic meters, thus alleging gross violation of provisions of U.P. (Minor) Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 and conditions no. 9 to 13 of the lease deed. Order dated 01.12.2011 also called upon petitioner to immediately stop mining operations and to submit his reply within a week. Petitioner submitted his reply on 15.12.2011 denying the allegations in the notice/ order dated 01.12.2011. It was alleged that petitioner represented before authorities on 16.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 requesting them to permit him to restart mining operations, but it was only on 14.09.2012 that the Collector, Mahoba proceeded to cancel the lease on 14.09.2012. Petitioner challenged the order dated 14.09.2012 in appeal, which came to be dismissed on 13.05.2013.

(2.) It was streneously urged on behalf of petitioner that after issuance of show-cause notice dated 17.11.2011, which was responded on 26.11.2011, a fresh notice/ order dated 01.12.2011 was issued, which was only founded upon an alleged exparte inspection carried out on 29.11.2011. It was thus contended that inspection report dated 29.11.2011, a copy of which was not served on petitioner could not have become the basis of cancellation of the lease. It was also contended that the report dated 03.11.2011 of Mining Officer, Mahoba addressed to Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mahoba (Annexure-SCA1) itself indicates that during inspection on 02.11.2011, it was found that the school building in question is situated at a considerable distance from the mining site and considering the nature of cracks on the building, same could not be attributable to blasting operations carried out by petitioner.

(3.) Refuting the aforesaid submission, learned Standing Counsel submits that on available materials, petitioner was found guilty of committing gross irregularities in the course of mining operations and that after due notice and opportunity, his lease has been cancelled to which no illegality could be attributed.