DHANANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:--

(2.) Sri Akash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that despite the fact that petitioner was ready to deposit the installment, as per agreement, the said deposit was not accepted, rather it was informed that due to non-payment of the installment, lease was cancelled by the department, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He has argued that the Mines Commissioner too without application of mind has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against order of cancellation of mining lease of the petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without following the procedure, as prescribed in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, the lease agreement was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on an unreported Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court passed in L.P.A. No. 742 of 2010 (The M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Sanjeev Bhaskar & Ors.) with L.P.A. No. 284 of 2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjeev Bhaskar & Ors.) dated 20.4.2011.

(3.) Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/Mines and Geology Department, by way of referring to averment made in the counter affidavit, submits that after being declared highest bidder for Block No. B for bid amount of Rs. 24,50,000/- (Twenty four lacs and fifty thousand), the petitioner put his signature on the bid-sheet and he agreed to make the payment of the bid amount. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed, vide letter No. 787/Mining dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit) to make payment of the first installment of the bid amount and also to submit the required papers. In this regard, remainders were also sent by the respondent authorities and thereafter, the first installment of Rs. 4,90,000/- (Four lacs and ninety thousand) was deposited by the petitioner, vide challan and after payment of first installment as well as submission of required papers in prescribed form the agreement/lease was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 on 15.6.2009 whereby an area of 0.87 Acre of land was leased out in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years. It has been argued by Sri Prasad, learned counsel for the Mines & Geology Department that as per agreement, second and third installment was to be paid before 31.1.2010 or 31.12.2010, but no payment was made by the petitioner. Thereafter, notices were issued. By way of referring to statement made in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it has been argued that one Ravi Kumar Singh, in the garb of being partner of the petitioner, on 24.3.2011 entered into the office of respondent No. 5/Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad and misbehaved with the officer and as such, an F.I.R. with Aurangabad Town Police Station was lodged against the said Ravi Kumar Singh as well as against the present petitioner for offence under Sections 448, 353, 506, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in the meanwhile, remainders were also issued to the petitioner to pay the due amount. Since as per agreement, the petitioner had not deposited any installment after the first installment, in view agreement itself as well as provision contained under Rule 52(5) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, as per the order of the Collector, the lease, which was granted in favour of the petitioner earlier, was cancelled and communication issued to the petitioner, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/Mines & Geology Department, since the petitioner had himself violated the terms and conditions by non-deposit of successive installments, the lease was rightly cancelled and same was correctly approved by the revisional authority i.e. order of the Mines Commissioner.