NATWAR LAL KHATAW ATHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing order No. 10/2007 dated 1.6.2007 passed in Revision Application No. 6/(5)/2005 -RCI by the Mining Tribunal and for quashing memo No. 55 dated 11.1.2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Deputy Secretary, by the impugned order has revoked the prospecting licence granted to the petitioner on the ground that he failed to fulfill the requirement of Rule 15(1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Learned Mining Tribunal has affirmed the said order of the Deputy Secretary and dismissed the said revision application. The petitioner has further prayed for direction on the respondents to execute the lease deed pursuant to the prospecting license granted in his favour by memo No. 856M dated 12.8.2002.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he was granted prospecting license by the State of Jharkhand by order dated 12.8.2002 under the provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which has been arbitrarily revoked.

(3.) THE respondents have contested the petitioner's claim stating, interalia, that the State of Jharkhand had granted prospecting license to the petitioner for a period of 2 years by order dated 12.8.2002. According to the terms and the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner had to deposit prospecting fee and security deposit within a period of 90 days. Rule 15(1) of the M.C. Rules provides execution of lease deed within 90 days from the date of the communication of the order of granting prospecting license. The said Rule further provides that if no such deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the license. The petitioner failed to deposit security amount and the required fee within the stipulated period of 90 days. After lapse of considerable period, he filed an application for extension of time/condonation of delay on 15.1.2003. The petitioner, however, did not file application for extension of time before expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days.