MD. SAYEM ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed against the order as contained in Memo No. 1234 dated 1st July, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 4, the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur, Jharkhand by which the petitioner was informed of the cancellation of his mining lease pursuant to the order dated 28th June, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, respondent no. 2, on the allegation that the petitioner was found to have indulged in use of explosives without licence. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the revisional order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi as contained in Annexure-6 on the same ground.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for quarrying stone in an area of 1.21 acres in Mauja-Lakhipahari of District-Pakur in the month of September, 2002 for 10 years, which was to expire on 5th September, 2012. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was carrying on business of stone from the said leasehold area in terms of the rules and regulations and had not indulged in any use of explosives. However, the area was inspected in absence of the petitioner without any notice to him by the Executive Magistrate, who reported the matter to the Assistant Mining Officer, which led to lodging of an FIR against the petitioner and one other person under the provisions of Sections 3 /4/5 of Explosives Substances Act (Annexure-1). On notice, the petitioner replied to the Assistant Mining Officer that he was never indulged in any use of explosives and the order of cancellation of his lease was not proper. However, the petitioner's lease was cancelled by the impugned order, which was communicated to the petitioner as contained in Memo No. 1234 dated 1st July, 2003, Annexure-5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred a revision, which was rejected by the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 24th September, 2005, as contained in Annexure-6, in Revision Case No. 77/2003. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of said inspection carried out by the Executive Magistrate on other leasehold area for similar allegation, FIR was lodged against a number of lessees but some of the mining lease was not cancelled.

(3.) The petitioner approached this Court and an interim order granting status quo was passed on 23rd March, 2006 enabling the State Counsel to produce the records of the case and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner and thereafter the matter was taken up on 14th May, 2012 and further time was allowed to the State Counsel to seek instruction and file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.