SHANKER PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 309 of 1964.

(2.) BY these two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek writs of certiorari for quashing two orders passed by the State government, one on 20th February 1964 rejecting the petitioner Shankar Prasad goenka's application for the transfer of a lease for extraction of limestone to the other petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 308 of 1964, namely, Messrs T. C. Bajan and Co. , Private Ltd. of Katnf (hereinafter called the company) and another order passed on 7th April 1964 cancelling the lease for attraction of limestons granted to Shanker Prasad Goenka, forfeiting the security deposit under the lease and requiring him to quit and deliver possession of the lands covered by the lease.

(3.) THE material facts are. that on 1st November 1961 Shankar Prasad Goenka was granted by ths State a quarry lease for the extraction of limestone in certain specified lands admeasuring 24. 75 acres, situated in Mauia Amehta, Tahsil muvwara, District Jabalpur, for a period of five wears commencing from 1st november 1961 and ending on 31st October 1966. On 4th March 1962 the leasee geonka entered into an agreement with one Dorab Cawasji Bajan for the raising of limestone from the leased out area. Under that agreement Bajan was to engage all labour for the extraction of limestone at marked out places, use his own tools, machinery and materials, was to stack extracted limestone at the place or places selected by Goenka and was to receive payments at the rate of Rs. 20/.-per 100 cft. of limestone raised. Bajan was made responsible for payment of wages, compensation amount and other emoluments "payable under the law" to his labour and personnel. This agreement was to last for an initial period of two years. On 18th March 1962 Goenka entered into another agreement with the company in which Dorab Cawasji Bajan was a partner, for the sale of limestone at the rate of rs. 30/- per 100 Cft. This contract contained clauses about drawing of bills, payment and delivery of limestone. Its duration was stated to be initially for a period of five years. The petitioner did not file copies of these agreements along with his two petitions. The State also did not file them along with their returns. But these agreements are to be found in the record of the matter which was placed before us. On 23rd July 1962 Goenka made a request in writing to the government for being allowed to transfer his lease to the Company. He reiterated this request by another application to the Government on 9th March 1963. It has been stated in the return filed on behalf of the State that on receipt of these applications an enquiry was held by the Sub-divisional Officer, Katni, and it was found by him that the lessee had not maintained any accounts and had virtually transferred the lease to the Company by the two agreements he had concluded with the Company and Dorab Cawasji Bajan. The report of the Sub-Divisional officer was forwarded to the Government through the Commissioner, Jabalpur division, with his recommendation that the transfer application should be rejected and the lease should be cancelled as the lessee had not maintained account books, had virtually transferred the lease without obtaining the previous sanction of the lessor, and had thus committed a breach of conditions Nos. 5 and 12 of the lease. In the return it has been averred that the lessee was given full opportunity by the sub-Divisional Officer, Katni, the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, and the commissioner, Jabalpur Division, for producing his account books and explaining the agreements he had entered into with Dorab Cawasji Bajan and the Company. The petitioner however complains that no such opportunity was given. After the receipt of the report of the Commissioner, a notice was issued to the lessee goenka on 20th February 1964 (Annexure A to the petition in Misc. Petition No. 309 of 1964) to show cause why the lease granted to him should not be determined as he had contravened Clauses 5 and 12 of the lease by failing to maintain proper accounts and transferring the lease to the Company without prior sanction of the State Government, The petitioner Goenka gave his reply on 24th february 1964 which did not satisfy the Government. Ultimately, the Government passed the impugned order on 7th April 1964 cancelling the petitioner Goenka's lease on the grounds stated in the show cause notice dated 20th February 1964. The lessee Goenka's application for a transfer of the lease was rejected by an order made on 30th February 1964 which ran as follows: "state Government are pleased to reject the transfer application of Shri shanker Prasad Goenka of Katni in respect of his quarry lease for limestone over an area of 24. 75 acres in mauza Amheta to M/s. T. C. Bajan and Co. Katni on the grounds that there are strong speculations in the proposed transaction. "