GALLOP GRANITES LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1- Company, a lessee in respect of a quarry for "decorative stones" in the district of Bolangir, Inter alia, seeks to assail the order dated 1st August, 2001 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against cancellation of quarry lease in respect of 6.799 hectors and 13.193 hectors in village Gandhargola granted vide lease quarry case Nos. 140 and 141 by the State of Orissa. Petitioner No. 2 is the Power of Attorney holder of petitioner No, 1-Company.

(2.) The dispute has a chequered career as would be evident from the facts stated below: On the basis of an application made by the petitioner-company (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") in the prescribed form in consonance with the provisions of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Concession Rules") a quarry lease over 6.799 hectors and 13.193 hectors in village Gandhargola under Titilagarh Tahasil in the district of Bolanglr for extraction of decorative stones was granted in its favour. It is averred that the application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the competent authority after following all paraphernalia and procedure more particularly Rule 10(1) of the Concession Rules and two lease deeds were executed each for a term of ten years commencing from 2nd February, 1993 between the petitioner and the Governor of Orissa through the Mining Officer, Bolangir. The lease deeds specifically stipulated the conditions and obligations to be followed by the lessee. After execution of the said lease deeds, it is averred, with all honesty, the petitioner operated the quarry till July, 1997. But there after due to certain unavoidable reason the petitioner was constrained to suspend the quarry work. This fact, according to the petitioner, was intimated to the concerned authorities. While matter stood thus, the petitioner received a show cause notice directing it to show cause as to why the leases would not be cancelled in consonance with the provisions of Rule-14(4) of the Concession Rules. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice moved this Court In OJC No. 9231 of 1998. The said writ application was disposed of on 23-7-1998 with a direction to the authorities to consider the show cause submitted by the petitioner and pass a final order, after heaing the petitioner within ten days. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to move this Court if any order was passed against it. After communication of the said order, the concerned authorities by order dated 28-8-1998 intimated the petitioner that as it had failed to carry out the stone quarry operation in a skilled and workman-like manner and discontinued such operation since July, 1997 that revealed that the petitioner had lack of Interest to operate the quarry lease and had, thus, violated Rule-14(4) and (5) of the Concession Rules. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the quarry lease would not be cancelled, within one month from the date of receipt of the letter. The said letter, it is alleged, was received by the petitioner on 3-9-1998 and the petitioner submitted a show cause on 11-9-1998 reiterating the stand taken in its earlier letter dated 22-6-1998 and explaining the reasons for which the quarry operation had been discontinued. In the meanwhile, as directed by the authorities, it is averred, the petitioner deposited the dead-rent, surface rent and other legal dues. The petitioner also requested the authorities to drop the cancellation proceeding. It Is alleged that without verifying any records and without complying with the principles of natural Justice and equity, the Joint Secretary to the Government by his order dated 4-9-1999, was pleased to cancel the quarry leases by his order dated 4-9-1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner once again moved this Court In OJC No. 13759 of 1999. The petitioner also preferred an appeal before the competent authority challenging the order of cancellation dated 4-9-1999. This Court issued notice to the opp. parties and as an Interim measure directed that fresh lease. If granted in respect of the disputed quarry would abide by the final result of the writ application. In spite of the said order, fresh lease was granted in favour opp. party No. 4. On the basis of a petition filed by the petitioner-company, this Court on 1-6-2000 directed opp. party No. 4 not to operate the quarry in respect of the areas leased out in favour of the petitioner. The writ application was finally heard and disposed of on 20-4-2001 with the following observations :

(3.) After receiving the Rule, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. parry Nos. 1 and 4. It is stated that though quarry lease was granted in favour of the petitioner as long back as in the year 1993, It failed to commence quarry operation till 1998. Such action was contrary to Rule-14 of the Concession Rules. It is further averred that inaction of the petitioner to start quarry operation clearly revealed that it had lack of interest to operate the quarry. It is further averred that though time was extended more than once for commencement of quarry operation and though five years' period lapsed, the petitioner failed to produce even a single marketable decorative stone block from those areas. When the petitioner failed to carry on operation in a skilled and workman like manner and violated the conditions Imposed in the lease-deeds as well as the statutory Rules, the authority was constrained to cancel the quarry leases. It is further averred that the appeal filed before the competent authority was also duly considered and as there was no merit, the same was dismissed. It is further averred that the action of the petitioner itself would reveal that it had violated Rule-14 of the Concession Rule and it is a fit case where the writ application should be dismissed in limine.