STATE Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record, we have formed an opinion that for obvious inconsistencies, the impugned order dated 27.08.2002 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5141/1999 cannot be sustained; and the matter is required to be remanded for consideration afresh.

(2.) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, not much of dilation on the factual aspects and contentions appears necessary. Only a brief reference to the background facts and relevant aspects would suffice.

(3.) IN the writ petition leading to this appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-respondent that Ravanna Books were not issued in spite of requests made and hence, the mining operations could not be started and yet, dead-rent was being demanded under the impugned communications Annexures-13, 14 and 15. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the present appellants before the learned Single Judge that the mining operations were stopped for the writ-petitioner having undertaken such operations as deep as 13 metres underground without complying with the safety measures as per the regulations. It was also submitted that even if the writ-petitioner had not carried out the mining operations, he was bound to pay the amount of dead-rent as agreed under the lease deed dated 05.10.1981.