CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a piece of land situated at Plot No. 2513/P of village-Dhobna, measuring an area of 2.75 acres was leased to the petitioner vide deed dtd. 30/8/2011 for the purpose of mining of stones for a period of 10 years and an amount of Rs.24,750.00 was paid as security deposit for the said mining leasehold area. However, the environmental clearance and other statutory permissions were not granted for the said mining operation and as such, the mining activity on the said land could not commence. The said fact was duly intimated to the respondent no. 3 the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, who vide memo no. 824/M dtd. 23/9/2014 acknowledged the said fact. The petitioner time and again intimated the respondent no. 3 regarding the closure of the leased mines making prayer for termination of the lease deed, however, the respondent no. 3 did not pass the order of termination of the mining lease. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 filed Certificate Case No. 8 of 2018-19 before the respondent no. 2 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,85,805.00 from the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge about the institution of the said certificate case, as he had not been served any statutory notice under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1914 which prevented him to file any objection to the certificate amount. It is submitted that the certificate proceeding was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law. The respondent no. 2 proceeded without recording any satisfaction in relation to service of notice and vide order dtd. 3/6/2019 issued "warrant of attachment" against the petitioner. Thereafter, on expiry of the time for execution of the said "warrant of attachment", the same was again issued vide order dtd. 31/12/2019. As soon as the petitioner got information about initiation of the certificate proceeding, he filed an objection dtd. 18/3/2020 under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1914 denying the certificate amount. He also filed an application dtd. 18/3/2020 for review and recall of the order of the "warrant of attachment". However, the respondent no. 3 rejected the objection of the petitioner on the same day by holding that the same has been filed after the expiry of prescribed period and that the same was not in accordance with law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was served with a notice vide letter no. 85/M, Jamtara dtd. 19/1/2018 for violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, however he did not comply the said notice and as such, vide order dtd. 3/5/2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, the mining lease of the petitioner was terminated and vide letter no. 575/M dtd. 5/5/2018, he was informed accordingly. It is further submitted that vide letter no. 746/M, Jamtara dtd. 12/7/2018, the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.4,61,522.00 was due against him in connection with fixed rent, surface rent, interest and royalty for mining lease area till June, 2018, but he did not respond to it. Again vide letter no. 1101/M Jamtara dtd. 19/11/2018, the respondent no. 3 sent a reminder to the petitioner, however, he neither replied the same nor paid the dues amount. It is also submitted that the petitioner has wrongly asserted that no notice under Sec. 7 was received by him, rather the same was issued to him vide registered post in the prescribed form with a copy of certificate which was not returned. It is thus evident that notice under Sec. 7 was served upon the petitioner, but he did not bother to file his objection petition within 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was also served with notices vide memo no. 47 dtd. 20/2/2019 and memo no. 73 dtd. 22/4/2019 to pay the certificate amount, however, he did not reply the same.