BHARAT RAJ SOINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The counsel for the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction from this Honble Court for quashing the letter dated 18.9.07 issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh as contained in Memo no.4075/Khanan whereby and whereunder he has informed the petitioner that Deputy Commissioner on 30.8.3007 has passed an order that the petitioner has violated Clause No.3 of the conditions of the letter of the Government of India as such it will not be possible to sign the lease deed. The counsel for the petitioner further prays for quashing the letter dated 7.3.2007 as contained in letter No.541 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh East whereby he has requested the District Mining Officer that the lease deed of the petitioner should not be renewed until and unless the petitioner fulfills all the conditions as laid down in the letter of the Central Government. The counsel for the petitioner further prays to certify and call for the records from the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in respect of the lease renewal application of the petitioner and thereafter quash the order dated 30.8.2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner has directed that the lease deed will not be signed until and unless the petitioner fulfills the clause No.3 of the letter of the Central Government. The counsel further prays for a further writ, order or direction to show cause to the concerned authorities as to under what authority the impugned orders have been issued when in fact the petitioner has already fulfill all the conditions of the letter of the Central Government which has not been denied by the respondents in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner and allowed by this Honble Court being W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2006. The petitioner further prays for directing the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith renew the mining lease of the petitioner without any hindrance and delay.