OM PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Department of Mines and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2003 of the Commissioner Mines in Revision Case No. 5 of 2003. The impugned order cancels the mining lease granted to the petitioner on two counts: (i) that he had violated certain conditions of the lease; and (ii) that the No Objectioin Certificate granted by the Department of Forest had been withdrawn. The petitioner was granted a mining lease in the year 1999 for ten years for extraction of stones in Plot No. 1907 (part), Thana No. 217, Cadestral Survey No. 217, Mauja Patam, PS Munger over an area of 2.29 Acres. Prior to the grant of the lease, the Forest Department vide Annexure 2 dated 27.7.1998 confirmed that the area proposed to be leased to the petitioner fell outside the forest area. It however cautioned that in the garb of mining in non -forest land, no interference should be caused within the notified forest lands. Subsequently the District Magistrate, Munger constituted a committee to reascertain if the lands leased were part of the forest area. The report dated 27.7.2000 of the Committee again confirmed that the lands leased for mining were outside the notified forest area.

(3.) ON 2.1.2003 the petitioner was given a show cause notice by the Department of Mines alleging violation of certain conditions of the lease. In the show cause notice the question of absence of NOC from the Forest Authority was not an issue. Item No. 7 of the show cause notice however did take notice of the fact that on account of explosive used by the petitioner the Secretary, Forest and Environment by his letter dated 24.9.2002 had noted that it was having effect on the wild life in the adjacent sanctuary. The petitioner submitted his reply. Ultimately by order dated 14.2.2003 the mining lease of the petitioner was cancelled prematurely on four counts. The absence of a no objection certificate from the Department of Forest was not one of the grounds. The revision application came to be preferred thereafter when the impugned order has been passed.