KAITAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF STEEL AND MINES DEPT OF MINES NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Khaitan Mineral Development Corporation, Cheepurpalli, Srikakulam District, was granted a mining lease for Manganese Ore over an extent of Ac. 7-78 cents in S. No, 141 (P) and 151 (P; of Devada Village, Cheepurupalli taluk, Srikakulam District, for a period of 20 years, by an order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Ms. No 1043, Industries, dated 25th July, 1964. The mining lease deed was executed on 7th November, 1964, and it is valid upto 6th November, 1984. Manganese ore is a mineral, listed as Item II in Schedule-I of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. While the petitioner was carrying on mining operations, it was served with a notice in February, 1970, by the District Collector, stating that the petitioner had transported manganese ore from the mine without giving 15 days notice and thus contravened the covenants 1 and 13 of Part VII of the Mining Lease Deed, and called upon it to show cause why the lease should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted its explanation that the royalty had been paid, that certain refunds were due to it for the previous years and that it was entitled to adjustment of the same. The petitioner however admitted having committed breach of covenant No. 13 but raised a contention that it was a formal one and that notice need not be given in writing when the officers were aware of the production of the material.

(2.) The District Revenue officer, Srikakulam, by his order Rc. No. 28286 of 74-D3 dated 15th March, 1975 rejected the explanation of the petitioner, determined the mining lease with immediate effect and forfeited the whole security amount of Rs. 1000 for violation of covenant No. 13 of Part VII of the mining lease deed.

(3.) Against the said order of the District Revenue Officer, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Central Government, under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Central Government after calling for the comments of the State Government, dismissed the revision petition by final order No. 246 of 1977 dated 7th September 1977 which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 24th October, 1977. It is these two orders of the Central Government and the District Revenue Officer that are being challenged in this writ petition.