SUNIL KUMAR CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-23) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka whereby he has dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure-15) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby he has cancelled the explosive licence granted to the petitioner in public interest. The fact giving rise to the case is that the petitioner was granted lease by the State Government for quarrying stone. The period of the licence was 10 years commencing from 2.8.1999 with renewal clause. The lease was obtained with certain terms and conditions, which were incorporated in the lease deed. In the year 2003, the petitioner obtained license for using explosives for the purpose of mining stone. The license was granted by the Deputy Commissioner which was exclusively for the said purpose. The lease was with respect to 5 Acres of land of Plot Nos. 74-75 of Mouza -Suriya. In the year 2003, a decision was taken by the Central Government to establish a Navodaya Vidyalaya over 17 Acres of land of Mouza - Suriya. It has been alleged by the petitioner that construction of Novodaya Vidyalaya was started encroaching upon about 0.87 Acres of leasehold area of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the same, but that was not heeded upon. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. The Deputy Commissioner directed the concerned Circle Officer to conduct an enquiry. The Circle Officer, after completion of enquiry, submitted a report on 17.9.2005. In the report, it was mentioned that 0.87 Acres of the leasehold area of the petitioner is under the boundary of the Navodaya Vidyalaya. In spite of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner did not take any action. Subsequently, the petitioner made representation before the Circle Officer and also filed informatory petition before the C.J.M, Deoghar informing about the alleged encroachment. In the meanwhile, the Novodaya Vidyalaya made complain before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that the petitioner is raising dispute over a part of the land of the school. On receiving such complain, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him as to why his lease be not cancelled. According to the petitioner, he appeared and explained before the Deputy Commissioner that a portion of his leasehold area has been encroached upon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya. The petitioner has not raised any dispute, as complained by the Navodaya Vidyalaya.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though there was a clear report of the Circle Officer about the encroachment over a portion of the leasehold area of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 27.4.2007, cancelled the petitioner's lease on the ground that allowing mining in the vicinity by sue of explosive may be injurious and damaging to the school children and it will not be in the public interest. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the said order in this Court in W. P. (C) No. 4353/2007. This Court, by order dated 3.10.2007, dismissed the said writ petition observing that the petitioner has raised several disputed facts in the writ petition and he has got efficacious alternative statutory remedy to prefer appeal against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred letters patent appeal before this Court against the order of learned Single Judge being L. P. A. No. 1/2008. The said appeal was also dismissed upholding the observation as made in the order passed in the said writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred special leave petition in the Apex Court being S. L. P. (C) No. 3583/2009. By order dated 23.2.2009, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Misc. Appeal (Mining) No. 94/2009. Learned Commissioner, by the impugned order (Annexure-23), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of learned Commissioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner have not properly appreciated the valuable right of the petitioner and in spite of the report of the Circle Officer that a portion of the leasehold area of the petitioner has been encroached upon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya, the Deputy Commissioner arbitrarily cancelled the explosive license of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner has also erroneously upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner.