ASHOK SOMANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ashok Somany has challenged order Annexure P.5 dated 16.10.1987 passed by the State Government cancelling the lease of mining of school slate stone, which was granted to him on 19th October, 1983, for a period of 20 years.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner was granted a mining lease for school slates over an area measuring 847 kanals, 14 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Majra Mutsil Bhalki, Manethi, Padla, tehsil Rewari, district-Mahendergarh. The aforesaid lease was granted to him in accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The agreement of lease came to be executed on 19th of October, 1983, as referred to above for a period of 20 years with a renewal clause coming through the Director of Industries. The case of the petitioner is that he has been extracting, mineral, school slate stone in terms of the lease deed from the date of execution of the agreement and there had been no complaint of any kind whatsoever against him regarding violation of any term of condition of the lease deed. He is stated to have invested a huge amount in carrying out the mining operations in skilful manner. That on some reports of the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Rewari, a notice was issued to him by the Director of Industries, Haryana dated 18th February, 1987, wherein it was alleged that he was extracting multi coloured slates and disposing the same as minor mineral. In the notice of aforesaid, it was further said that if he would not remedy the breach referred to above within 60 days of the receipt of the notice, his lease shall be terminated and security forfeited. A reply to aforesaid show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 8th April, 1987 wherein it was emphasised that school slate stone is being extracted and that no new material has been discovered in the leased area nor the' multi-colored slates make the school slates a different item. It was also stated that as per interpretation and direction of the Government, the slates in gray black and multi colours do not make it a different mineral. It is required to be mentioned that it was as per clause 9 of part VII of the lease-deed that the petitioner was to report to the State Government the discovery in the leased area of any mineral not specified in the lease within 60 days of such discovery along with full particulars of the nature and position of each such find any if nay mineral not specified in the lease was discovered in the leased area, the petitioner could not win and dispose of such minerals unless such mineral was recorded in the lease or a separate lease obtained thereof. The case of the petitioner is that some frivolous complaints were also made and on enquiries by various authorities and also the police authorities on the spot a definite report had come in favour of the petitioner wherein it was clearly stated that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Not only that, matter was also enquired by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Narnaul that the petitioner had not violated any term and condition of the lease deed especially clause 9 of part VII, the reference of which has been given above. It is further the case of the petitioner that mining lease granted to him has been cancelled at the 'instance of M/s Haryana Mineral Limited, who is keen to get the lease for itself by getting false and bogus reports made against the petitioner. Even though reply was filed and various points were raised therein to the show cause notice, the lease was cancelled by the State Government, vide its order dated 12th November, 1987. It is this order that has been challenged in the present case. The main grounds that have been pressed seeking relief indicated above are that notice contained in Annexure P-2 was defective inasmuch as clause 9 of part VII of the lease-deed had not been correctly quoted. It is also alleged that no new mineral had been discovered in the leased area nor there was any need to get it included in the existing lease or even to obtain a separate lease for multi-coloured slate. The definition of term "slate" includes a coloured slate which-colour obviously comes on account of presence or absence of iron oxide, especially haemitin. With a view to substantiate the plea aforesaid it is said that slate under gray black multi colour do not make it a different mineral as sought to be interpreted by the State Government. It is further pleaded that notice Annexure P-2 is vague in nature as no details regarding disposal of multi- coloured slate as minor minerals have been given therein nor any enquiry had been held on the spot to prove whether the petitioner had sold multicolored slate as minor mineral to anybody. The report of Sub-Divisional Officer is also pleaded to be wrong, in view of the report of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Narnaul and technical officers who have made their own reports after verifying the material on the spot. It is further pleaded and canvassed at the time of arguments that no enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner regarding disposal of multi colour slate to any particular person.

(3.) The petitioner has been opposed and written statement has been field on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 5 through Shri Kuldeepak Ahuja, Mining Engineer. By way of preliminary objections, it has been pleaded that there was an alternative remedy by filing revision application under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (R&D) Act, 1957 before Central Government against any order of the State Government and in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the present petition is not competent. It is further pleaded that the petition raise disputed questions of facts as to whether the petitioner had been disposing of multi-coloured slates as flooring and roofing titles, i.e., as minor mineral for which petitioners did not hold any mining lease. On merits, the case of the respondents is that there were complaints against the petitioner that he was disposing slates as minor minerals whereas he had right only for school slates. An enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari in the working of the mine and according to his report the petitioner was extracting multi-coloured slates and was disposing of these as minor minerals for construction purposes which was in contravention of the covenants of lease deed Annexure P.1. Notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of report of the Sub-Divisional Officer aforesaid. It is further stated that in consequence of the notice issued to the petitioner, reply that was received was not found to be satisfactory in view of the fact that multi coloured slates have better and ready market as roofing and flooring tiles as compared to the school slates and there was difference even in the rate of royalty between school slates and slate stone. The order cancelling the lease-deed is sought to be justified under the facts and circumstances of the present case.