Jharkhand High Court
Amrit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 20 October, 2021
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 5960 of 2010
........
Amrit Singh .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I ........
05/20.10.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma and learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I. Petitioner namely, Amrit Singh has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.07.2010 contained in Letter No. Kha. Ni. (Birhat) Deoghar 1/2001/1290/M Ranchi passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner was informed that application of the petitioner for extension of time for subsission of the documents was hereby rejected on the account that petitioner is attorney holder and not entitled to get the mining lease.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Amrit Singh is the registered Power of Attorney Holder of Original Lessee Harmeet Singh, which was executed at Office of Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad on 12.02.2009 at 11:14:38 hours and thereafter Harmeet Singh went to France and since then he is incapacitated and did not return to India, but his renewal of lease, which has been rejected on 30.07.2010, is without any legal and valid basis as registered power of attorney can represent the case of original lessee Harmeet Singh before the respondent authorities, as such, impugned order may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, has submitted that it is a old stale matter of the year 2010. The State has already filed counter affidavit on 17.01.2013 through the Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar, whereby it has been stated that Director, Mines, Jharkhand vide Letter No. 711/M dated -2- 18.06.2007 communicated the decision of the Government regarding grant of mining lease of feldspar and quartz over an area of land pertaining to Plot no. 39P located in Mauza Kalhajora in the district of Deoghar to Sri Harmeet Singh, resident of 15, Gurudwara Building, Katras Road, Dhanbad on the condition that Mining Plan and Mines Closure Plan duly approved by I.B.M. to be submitted within six months from the date of issuance of aforesaid letter. But Sri Harmeet Singh could not submit the approved Mining Plan and Mine Closure plan within the stipulated period as specified in the aforesaid letter.
It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that an extension of date for submission of approved Mining Plan and Mine Closure Plan was permitted upto February, 2008 vide Letter No. 66/M, Ranchi dated 16.01.2008 on request of Sri Harmeet Singh. After expiry of stipulated period one Sri Amrit Singh claiming himself to be the Attorney holder of Sri Harmeet Singh submitted the Mining Plan and Mine Closure Plan, vide letter dated 27.02.2009 and requested the Government to condone the delay in submission of the approved Mining Plan and Mine Closure Plan caused due to prolonged illness of Sri Amrit Singh. The State Government vide Letter no. 1290/M dated 30.06.2010 rejected the prayer of Sri Amrit Singh on the ground that Attorney holder Sri Amrit Singh is not a concession holder. Petitioner has failed to produce document in stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that such delay cannot be condoned and power of attorney holder cannot agitate the issue in absence of Harmeet Singh, who has left the Country 10 years ago and as such, this Court may not exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that no reply to the counter affidavit dated 17.01.2013 has filed by the petitioner, as such, the writ petition being stale may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and on perusal of writ petition including the -3- counter affidavit, it appears that the actual lease holder has never complied the condition of Government of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed, which does not require any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-