HANUMAN STONE WORKS, BARHARWA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance with the order of the last dated, the Opposite Party No. 2 namely the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj has appeared in court in person today and has filed a supplementary show cause reply. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that he has complied with the directions contained in the impugned order of this Court as passed in the writ application. Explaining the compliance made by him, the Deputy Commissioner submits that in compliance with the impugned order dated 24.02.2009 passed by this Court in the writ application, an enquiry was initiated by him in the form of Revenue Miscellaneous Petition Case No. 25/200809 and during the enquiry, notices were issued to all the concerned parties including M/s. Hanuman Stone Works, concerned Raiyats Markus Malto, Maisha Malto & Bhimi Malto and M/s. Akash Mining Corporation. All the parties were represented through their respective Advocates and they were given opportunity to submit their claim and were heard in detail. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner issued a detailed enquiry report and forwarded the same to the Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Ranchi vide letter dated 05.08.2009. After going through the enquiry report dated 16.07.2009, the Secretary, Mines Department, directed the deponent vide his letter dated 14.09.2009 to take a decision in relation to the sanction of the stone lease on getting the matter enquired into by the District Welfare Officer, Sahibganj. Pursuant to such directions, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded a letter of request dated 23.09.2009 to the District Welfare Officer to submit his report and simultaneous information in this regard was also forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to M/s. Hanuman Stones Works and M/s. Akash Mining Corporation. The report of the District Welfare Officer, Sahibganj dated 06.10.2009 was received. From the report it transpired that the concerned Raiyat has kept on changing his consent in relation to both the writ petitioners. However, on the basis of the previous written statement of the Raiyat and his withdrawal from the bank account, it appears that the Raiyat has used the money of both the petitioners. Furthermore, it was found that the Raiyat has not cancelled his earlier agreement with M/s. Akash Mining Corporation. Under such circumstances, it was not legally proper to grant lease to either of the petitioners. Accordingly, the earlier sanction granted to M/s. Akash Mining Corporation was also cancelled and such decision was communicated to the Secretary, Mines & Geology Department vide letter dated 10.10.2009.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that in the impugned order of this Court, a specific direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj to conduct a detailed enquiry after considering the objections received from the Raiyats including the Raiyat namely Markus Malto and other Raiyats and after hearing all the parties concerned, to submit his report before the concerned authorities of the Mining Department of the State Government within two months from the date of the order. Learned counsel adds that instead of conducting the enquiry himself, the Deputy Commissioner had delegated the enquiry to the District Welfare Officer which was violative of the directions contained in the impugned order of this Court.

(3.) Sri Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 2 would inform that as explained in the show cause reply, the Deputy Commissioner, after conducting his enquiry, had submitted his report on 16.02.2009 and though this report was not forwarded directly by the Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, but by way of adopting the official procedure, the Deputy Commissioner had forwarded his report to the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj with a request to place the same before the Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology along with all the relevant documents. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, after perusing the report, had issued a fresh direction to the Deputy Commissioner to get the matter again enquired into by the District Welfare Officer before taking a final decision on the issue relating to the claim of the petitioner. It is thus that the District Welfare Officer was involved for collecting all relevant materials and reports. Both the reports, including the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and the report of the District Welfare Officer, were considered and a final decision was taken at the level of the Mining Department and such decision was communicated to the petitioner and to all the concerned parties.