NITEEN KUMAR RAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the stone mining lease of the Petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of non-payment of mining dues and such order has been affirmed on 30.08.2010 in revision case No. 76 of 2010. He further submitted that Petitioner did not receive notice from the office of the Assistant Mining Officer. He also submitted that the mining lease has not been granted in favour of anybody and the Petitioner is ready to deposit the dues and is ready to pay up to date penal interest as per the lease.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submissions made by the Petitioner in the writ petition. He further pointed out that the notice was received by the Petitioner, but on the ground of illness of his mother, he did not deposit his dues nor file returns. He further submitted that he is not in a position to say whether lease has been granted to any other person or not.

(3.) It appears that a lease was granted to the Petitioner for an area of 1.59 acres of plot No. 1309 in village Garjowari, District Deoghar, but it was prematurely terminated on the ground of non payment of dues of Rs. 75,069/-and for non submission of the monthly returns from November 2008 to February 2010. It appears that notice was served on the Petitioner, but he did not comply with the same within the time granted and accordingly, the lease was rightly -2 prematurely terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar by his order dated 22.04.2010. The revisional authority also rightly confirmed the said order.