Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.N. Sunderson & Co. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2015
---1---
W. P. No.4909/2012
22.6.2015
Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for
respondents/State.
Heard counsel for the parties.
As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.
This petition takes exception to the order passed by Under Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Government of M.P. (Annexure P-6). The said Authority rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of mining lease.
For the reasons on which we are inclined to set aside the impugned order it is not necessary to advert to all other aspects referred to in the impugned order. Suffice it to note that the opinion founded in the impugned order is on the basis of report of Collector, District - Satna.
According to the petitioner, copy of the said report was never supplied to the petitioner. In other words, the grievance is that the decision taken by the Competent Authority relying on document, neither referred to in the show cause notice nor pointed out to the petitioner during the hearing before the Authority - on the question of
---2---
renewal of licence pursuant to the application made by the petitioner.
It is indisputable that the Competent Authority has relied on the report of the Collector, District - Satna to hold that the petitioner had failed to use the subject land for mining purpose from year 2002 and for which reason proceeded to conclude that the petitioner was not entitled for renewal of mining lease. Thus understood, the report of the Collector, District - Satna is a relevant and material document - which ought to have been supplied to the petitioner in advance or at least pointed out to the petitioner during the course of hearing to evoke his response with regard to the factual position stated therein, in particular, concerning the petitioner about having failed to utilize the land during the relevant period after 2002. There is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that this procedure was followed by the Competent Authority.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the grievance of the petitioner that the order impugned in this writ petition suffers from the vice of non-observance of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the proceedings conducted by the Competent Authority cannot be termed as fair and just. In that, the copy of the report of the Collector, District - Satna was not made available to the petitioner
---3---
nor there is any contemporaneous record to indicate that the said report was prepared after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.
Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the parties relegated before the Competent Authority for reconsideration of the application for renewal of mining lease on its own merits, in accordance with law, including keeping in mind the extant Regulations as may be applicable to the said applications. All questions in that behalf are left open.
The proceedings before the Competent Authority be decided expeditiously after giving due opportunity to all concerned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (K.K. Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal