BRIJ KISHORE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P/1), whereby mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled by the State Government.

(2.) SHRI N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main reason for cancellation of lease is that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of obtaining No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from Pollution Control Board but by placing reliance on notice dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P/4) learned counsel submits that in this notice it was mentioned that petitioner has not obtained the NOC from Pollution Control Board and, therefore, pursuant to the order passed by this Court his mining activity is stopped from immediate effect. Shri Gupta submits that immediately petitioner preferred a representation before the Pollution Control Board on 28.7.2008 (Annexure P/5) and prayed for NOC. Thereafter also the petitioner prayed for grant of NOC. The petitioner preferred yet another representation (Annexure P/6) dated 24.4.2009 intimating that his mining activity is stopped but certain anti-social elements are conducting mining activities in the petitioner's mining area and necessary action should be taken in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's bonafides can be gathered from his reply to the show cause notice (Annexure P/9) dated 28.2.2009, whereby he has mentioned that he has deposited the requisite amount before the Pollution Control Board and was awaiting for the NOC. By placing reliance on other representation, Shri N.K.Gupta submits that the respondents have cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the amount of royalty whereas petitioner is repeatedly asking the amount and the formula, on the strength of which the amount was derived but no reply has been given by the department.

(3.) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.