ABDUL RAJJAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seminal and spinal issue that has spiralled and stemmed in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the impugned order dated 19-01-2005, Annexure-P-6 whereby the State government has passed the order without following the principles of natural justice is warrantable and well founded, for the conception of the term 'declaration' as engrafted under sub-rule (6) of Rule 30 of M. P. Minor Minerals rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') would ostracise applicability of the doctrine of natural justice or the same deserves to be lance-ted and em-pierced as on a keener and deeper scrutiny it would be evincible that the said principle has neither been expressly or impliedly chartered into the realm of non-applicability.

(2.) THE facts which are requisite to be stated are that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease for minor mineral 'marble' over his own bhumiswami land admeasuring 2. 67 hectares situated in Khasra Nos. 435 and 436 Village, Nimas, tahsil, Bahoriband, District Katni for a period of 10 years commencing 6-9-2001 by the State Government under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity 'the MMDR Act') read within M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. In pursuance of the said grant an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the competent authority of the State Government on 6-9-2001 which was duly registered as per annexure-P-2. Copies of the map and 'khasra panchshala' of the land have been brought on record as Annexure-P-3. After execution of the agreement the petitioner was granted working permission by the Collector, Katni, as per annexure-P-4. On being granted Bhu-Pravesh the petitioner started quarrying operation over the said land and carried the mining activities and excavated a sizable amount of mineral for a period of time. The transit passes/royalty challans have been brought on record as Annexure-P-5. A detailed chart has been furnished to highlight the sizable excavation.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner while excavation was quite satisfactory, all of a sudden, without affording an opportunity of being heard the State government declared the quarry lease of the petitioner to have been lapsed on the ground that the petitioner had not been conducting quarrying operation and hence, there had been violation of the quarry lease agreement. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-P-6. It is put forth while declaring the said lease of the petitioner to have been lapsed because of the violation of clause (3) of Part 7 of the quarry lease agreement. It is highlighted that the petitioner was not issued any notice before passing of the impugned order and, therefore, he could not clarify the position and by virtue of violation of the principles of natural justice the entire action is vitiated. It is put forth that the petitioner has not violated any aspect of the agreement. He has duly filed the returns and the challans of the excavated minerals with the State Government from time to time. Despite having full knowledge with regard to all the details action has been taken without issue of notice to the petitioner which per se is arbitrary.