SWARUPANANDA DAS Vs. TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A long term lease was granted to the petitioner under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). That lease enured till 30.6.2003. While the lease was continuing, Annexure - 4 notice was issued informing the petitioner that there was default on his part to report about the death of a person in his mining area as contemplated by Rule 14 (6) of the Rules. By Annexure -5 the petitioner -lessee sought to contend that he was not available in the locality for a period of three months, that somebody had trespassed into his mining area without his knowledge and that he had no responsibility for the death that had occurred and that was the reason he had not reported the death. The authority concerned, the Tahasildar, (opposite party No. 1) found the explanation of the petitioner that he was away from the locality for a period of three months, and that a trespasser had entered the mining area unacceptable, especially in the context of the fact that the petitioner had submitted monthly returns as envisaged by Rule 14 of the Rules, even for the period in question. The Tahasildar found that there was a clear transgression of Rule 14 (16) of the Rules by the lessee, and consequently, cancelled the lease sanctioned in his favour. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules. The appellate authority, the Sub -Collector, agreed with the Tahasildar in holding that the explanation of the writ petitioner for his failure to report the death was not acceptable and that the petitioner had failed to report the fact of death of a person in the lease -hold. The appellate authority, therefore, held that there was a clear transgression of Rule 14 (16) of the Rules and the order of cancellation of the lease was justified. Thus, the cancellation of the mining lease was confirmed. It is challenging this appellate decision that the writ petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) WE may now read Rule 14 (16) of the Rules.

(3.) IN the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the orders, Annexures -2 and 1. We set aside the cancellation of the lease of petitioner, and impose on him a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in terms of Rule 24 (2) of the Rules. The fine amount of Rs. 1000/ - (Rupees one thousand) will be paid by the petitioner within two months from today to the concerned authority. Since the cancellation of the lease is now set aside by this order, it goes without saying that opposite party No. 3 will have no right in respect of the subsisting lease in favour of the petitioner.