DHIRAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter no. 643 dated 01.12.2016 issued by the Assistant District Mining Officer, Khunti (respondent no. 4) whereby the lease of the petitioner has been terminated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Bihar had executed a mining lease dated 24.04.1999 in favour of the petitioner for mining of stones in Mouza Patrauyur, Plot No. 681(part) measuring area 6.00 acres for a period of 10 years and the same was renewed from time-to-time. The Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi vide his letter no. 913 dated 14.05.2016 submitted a joint report dated 14.05.2016 stating that no harm will be caused to the people living in the nearby area of the said mine due to the mining activity. The respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 329 dated 21.06.2016 served show cause to the petitioner as to why the mining lease granted to him for the remaining period be not terminated in view of Rule 5 and 27 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (in short JMMC Rule, 2004). The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.09.2016. However vide letter no. 643 dated 01.12016, he was informed by the respondent no. 4 that his mining lease has been terminated by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 26.11.2016. It is further submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice because the petitioner has neither been afforded proper opportunity of hearing nor his show cause reply has been considered. The order of the respondent authority is thoroughly mechanical and suffers from non-application of mind. The respondent no. 4 in a mechanical manner has cited unwarranted reasons for termination of the lease of the petitioner such as the local people are dying of Tuberculosis disease (in short "T.B.") etc.

(3.) Learned A.C. to A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rule, 2004. It is further submitted that the provisions as contained in Rules 5 and 11 of the JMMC Rule 2004 as amended in the Gazette Notification dated 31st May 2014, it has been clearly enumerated that the conditions such as environment clearance and consent to operate as well as the consent from gram sabha are to be fulfilled before grant of mining lease. It is further submitted that a complaint dated 11.02.2016 was received from the members of the gram sabha, Patrauyur Khunti whereby at least 85 villagers have stated that consent of the gram sabha obtained by the petitioner is forged and it should be cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti had constituted a committee to look into the complaint pending before the respondent no. 4. The Committee submitted an enquiry report on 02.06.2016 stating that in the spot enquiry, it surfaced that earlier the consent of gram sabha was given only by few members. In fact, the villagers of the area are not allowing the Stone mines to operate and the respondent no. 4 has issued the impugned letter dated 01.12.2016 after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order requires no interference.