GANPATI KHANIJ UDHYOG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of the orders dated 21-9-93 (Annx. 6) and dated 23-2-1991 (Annx. 3) and Notice dated 24-11-93 (Annx. 7). A direction has been sought that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dead rent for the period during which the possession of the area remained with the State Govt. i.e. from 28-3-1985 to 27-10-1991.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that it was holding mining lease for mining Mica, Feldsar and Quartz near village Thumi Tonk, Tehsil Beawar, Distt. Ajmer for 20 years from 28-9-79 and that a notice dated 1-2-1984 was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 to produce the record for the period from 28-9-1982 to 27-9-1983 and thereafter the State Govt., due to the non-compliance of the said notice, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner vide order dated 10-1-1985 with forfeiture of security. The petitioner challenged this order by preferring revision petition before the Central Govt. who granted stay on 24-9-85 but the State Govt. had already taken over the lease area on 5-9-85. Despite the stay order the State Govt. did not restore the possession of the mining area to the petitioner. The Central Govt. decided the revision petition finally vide order dated 31-8-88 and directed the State Govt. to restore the mining lease after imposing such lesser penalty as may be considered adequate. The State Govt. did not take action thereafter for long time and it was only on 23-2-91 that the State Govt. passed the order restoring the mining lease to the petitioner with the condition that the party shall pay the dead rent for the intervening period for which the area remained with the State Govt. and at the same time State Govt. ordered the forfeiture of 100% amount of the security deposit on account of non-compliance of the notice. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Govt. by filing revision petition but the Central Govt. dismissed the same. In this writ petition, the petitioner's case is that the State Govt. cannot claim dead rent for the period the possession of the area remained with the State Govt.

(3.) In the reply, it has been averred that the order of the State Govt. is perfectly as per rules and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.