SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The fact of W.P. No.3776/12 are being narrated as under : 1. The petitioner before this court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 26.3.12 passed by the Collector District Ujjain, by which the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled. The contention of the petitioner is that

(2.) HE was granted mining lease in respect of a government land for crushing stone and it was renewed by an order dated 30th August, 2008 for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 6.2.2009. The petitioner's grievance is that without hearing him the impugned order has been passed. A detailed and exhaustive reply was submitted by him to the show cause notice issued by the Collector. The petitioner has also stated that the order of cancellation could not have been passed by the Collector and it is the State Government, who could have passed the order cancelling the lease keeping in view the Section 4 (a) of the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957. Other grounds have also been raised in the matter.

(3.) RESULTANTLY , the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. It is made clear that in case an appeal is preferred within 30 days from today, the same shall be decided on merit. In the present case, this court has passed an interim order dated 19.4.2012 directing the parties to maintain status- quo and the same is continuing. A prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant interim protection to the petitioner till the appeal is preferred before the appellate authority. Resultantly for a period of 30 days, the interim order passed by this court shall continue, as a liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority is granted to the petitioner.