SURESH CHANDRA PADHEE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the Girder dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure-11) and the order dated 22-7-2002 (Annexure-12) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar directing the petitioner not to operate the mining lease until receipt of further clarification from the Government.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for effectual adjudication of the present writ petition are that a Mining Lease was executed In favour of the petitioner in respect of the Mine situated in Bholabeda under Barbil Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar for a period of 20 years by a lease deed executed on 5-7-1972. After expiry of the term of the said lease on 4-7-1992, the same was! again extended for another period of 10 years by a second registered lease dated 7-1 r 1997 with a stlpula- tion that it would come to effect restrospectively from 5-7-1992. One year before expiry of the term of the second lease, an application for renewal of the lease accompanying necessary documents and land particulars was submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authority i.e. the Collector, Keonjhar on 3-7-2001. Though the same was duly received and acknowledged, no action has been taken till date. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in consonance with Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, the petitioner has a right to carry out the mining operation.

(3.) For the sake of brevity, Rule 24A(6) is quoted hereinabelow :