NIRANJAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 23/3/2018 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) in Revision Case No. 143 of 2017 whereby revision application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order as contained in letter no. 1035/M dtd. 11/9/2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau (the respondent no.3). Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 1035/M dtd. 11/9/2017 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby settlement of the sand ghat in favour of the petitioner over an area of 10.00 acres in Koyal river situated at Plot No. 2714 of village Redma under Redma South Gram Panchayat, Palamau (hereinafter to be referred as "the said sand Ghat") has prematurely been terminated.

(2.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the said sand Ghat was settled in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years i.e. from 1/2/2016 to 31/1/2019 finding him the highest bidder in the public auction held on 25/6/2015. The petitioner got environmental clearance from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand on 30/12/2015. Thereafter, a deed of indenture with map of the granted area was executed on 1/2/2016 which was registered on 17/2/2016. The petitioner also obtained 'consent to establish' and 'consent to operate' the project from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board as per the condition laid down in the deed of indenture. After obtaining all the statutory clearances, the petitioner started extracting and dispatching sand for which monthly returns were being filed in the office of District Mining Officer, Palamau (respondent no.4). The petitioner submitted online application on 26/5/2017 before the respondent no.4 for grant of registration/storage licence under the provision as mandated in Rule 4(1) of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 (in short "the Rules, 2007") for storing, procuring and selling sand in Mouza Redma, Thana No. 188, Khata No. 496, plot nos. 2191 and 2194 over an area of 2.09 acres whereupon the respondent no.4 asked the Circle Officer, Palamau (respondent no.5) to send detailed report about the said land. Though the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector submitted the report to the respondent no.5 on 2/6/2017, yet the said respondent did not submit the same to the respondent no.4 due to which the storage licence could not be granted to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in bonafide believe that storage licence was deemed to have been issued, it procured and stored sand over the area in question. Suddenly, the petitioner received a show cause notice as contained in letter no.630/M dtd. 16/6/2017 issued by the respondent no. 4 alleging that during inspection made on 9/6/2017 at about 3:45 p.m., a tractor was found near the sand ghat of the petitioner loaded with sand and the driver showed challan issued by the petitioner in which time of transportation of sand was mentioned as 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. On being asked, the driver of the said tractor stated that only one Challan was issued by the contractor by taking royalty of Rs.300.00 however, the contractor of the said sand ghat used to create pressure upon the drivers of tractors engaged in transportation of sand to lift the same 6 to 7 times in a day on same Challan and the contractor used to collect Rs.100.00 per trip. It was further alleged that the petitioner was also extracting sand from outside the sand ghat settled to him. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that during inspection, quantity of sand equivalent to approximately 1034 tractors was found outside the settled area of sand ghat for which no registration was obtained by the petitioner under the Rules, 2007 and as such he violated the provisions of the said Rules, moreover, the capacity of extraction of sand from the settled sand ghat was 80,700 CM per annum, but extraction of sand was being made more than the fixed capacity as mentioned in 'consent to operate' and 'Environment Clearance Certificate'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to letter dtd. 16/6/2017, the petitioner submitted his reply on 27/6/2017 denying all the allegations levelled against him. He claimed that no tractor was caught at the sand ghat settled to him, rather the same was caught from the road. It was explained that the said tractor was loaded with sand in the morning between 6.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. from his allotted sand Ghat and the transport challan was issued after receiving royalty of Rs.348.00 as per the government instruction. It was further explained that the petitioner did not know as to from where the sand was subsequently loaded by the said tractor. It was also explained that the petitioner was extracting sand within the demarcated area. The sand-stock was made to ensure its supply during rainy season for various development works of the government with respect to the contracts taken by the petitioner which were in progress. An order of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was received on 4/6/2017 that there was prohibition of extracting sand from settled sand ghat in rainy season for the period from 10/6/2017 to 15/10/2017. In this regard, the sand-stock was made by the petitioner for transporting it with valid transporting challan during the period from 6/6/2017 to 8/6/2017 in view of the fact that the application for registration/storage was pending before the competent authority and the petitioner was not aware of the fact that before grant of storage licence, stocking of sand was wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 4, vide impugned letter dtd. 11/9/2017, prematurely terminated the settlement of sand ghat made in favour of the petitioner directing him to hand over the possession of the same to the Government and also to remove the machinery etc if any installed there. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Revision Case No. 143 of 2017, however the same was also dismissed. It is also submitted that the impugned order as contained in letter no. 1035/M dtd. 11/9/2017 has been passed by the respondent no. 3 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or to cross-examine the witnesses which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.