Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Common Order on 20 June, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition Nos.3708 of 2020 and 11689 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
W.P. No.3708 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of 1st respondent in Memo No.6224/M.1(1)/2018 dated 02.01.2020 dismissing the revision application of the petitioner and upholding the lease determination order in D.Dis.7082/R5-1/2014 dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Director of Mines & Geology / 2ndrespondent.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The Quartz lease over an extent of 35.101 Hect. in Sy.No.2117 of Taluparal Village, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District originally stood in the name of Annam Reddy Udhika Priya, legal heir of late A.Kishore Kumar Reddy for a period of 20 years upto 28.05.2021. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 24.04.2010, the State Government has transferred the lease for the unexpired period in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been conducting mining operations thereon.
(b) While so, the petitioner fell sick and besides, some family disputes arose. Therefore, he was constrained to go to his place Chennai for treatment and subsequently returned and approached 3rd respondent for payment of dead rent when he was informed that his mining lease was determined by 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 23.03.2017 on the ground of non-payment of dead rent and non-conducting mining operations etc. The petitioner filed revision under Rule 35-A of the A.P. 2 Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the APMMC Rules, 1966') clearly submitting therein the reasons for his absence and expressing his willingness to clear all the mineral revenue dues. However, the revision was dismissed on 03.11.2017 with an untenable ground that the petitioner was disinterested in operating mines and he conducted breaches of the lease conditions. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41963/2017 which was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2017 setting aside the revisional order with a direction to dispose the revision in accordance with the procedure established by law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Pursuant to the above order, the 1st respondent passed order in Memo No.317/M1(1)/2018-2 dated 24.05.2018 upholding the dismissal order of the Director of Mines & Geology. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and no notice of hearing was given to him. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.19809/2018. The said writ petition was allowed on 29.06.2018 with a direction to hear the revision. The 1strespondent passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2010 dismissing the revision application on the ground that the applicant has always been avoiding payment of mineral revenue and conveniently litigating from time to time to block the area. The order of the revisional authority is a non-speaking one as no reasons were assigned for dismissing the revision. Quarry lease was determined on the ground of non-payment of dead rent. However, no order was passed under Rule 12(5)(h)(ii)(a) & (b) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 declaring as lapsed. If 3 it is lapsed, the Director can exercise powers to set aside the same on an application.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition as follows:
(a) Originally the Quartz lease over an extent of 35.101 Hect. in Sy.No.2117 of Talapula Village was granted for 20 years in favour of one A.Kishore Kumar Reddy as the lessee expired on 13.02.2008 and hence, on the request of his daughter Annam Reddy Udhika Priya, she was declared as legal heir of the lessee. Subsequently the lease was transferred in favour of petitioner for the unexpired period vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 24.04.2010. While so, the Assistant Geologist has inspected the mining lease area on 22.07.2014 and submitted report stating that the subject mine was not working since 2010 and arrears were not paid and reports were not submitted so also environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF) and A.P. Pollution Control Board was not submitted and boundary pillars were not erected around the leased area. Basing on the said inspection report, proposals under Rule 28(1) as per the APMMC Rules, 1966 were sent to the Director of Mines & Geology. Based on the said proposals, the Government issued show cause notice dated 21.10.2014 to the petitioner.
The petitioner has not submitted his reply against the show cause notice. At this juncture, the Quartz was declared as minor mineral along with 31 4 other major minerals vide G.O.Ms.No.34, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department dated 14.03.2016. In that view, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice No.7082/R5-1/2014 dated 19.01.2017 to the petitioner as to why action shall not be taken for determination of the quarry lease. However, the show cause notice was returned by the postal authorities with endorsement "no such person". In addition to it, the Senior Assistant who was sent by 3rd respondent to serve notice to the petitioner at Chennai returned stating that no person with the petitioner's name was found in the postal address and on enquiry he came to know that some third-party has purchased the house four years back and no alternative address of the petitioner was available. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent sent information to 2nd respondent to take further necessary action in the matter. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent has determined the lease vide his order dated 23.03.2017 as the petitioner has not submitted the particulars relating to the change of address and not rectified the breaches.
(b) Subsequently the petitioner appeared and filed revision application which was dismissed. Against the revision order, petitioner filed W.P.No.41963/2017 which was allowed on 13.12.2017 and revisional order was set aside and the matter was remitted to 1st respondent for disposal of the revision. Again the matter was heard by the revisional authority. Before hearing, the revisional authority vide Memo No.317/M.1(1)/2018-2 dated 22.01.2018 called for hearing of the petitioner on 25.01.2018 at 11.00 A.M. and also intimated to the Assistant 5 Director. The petitioner and Assistant Director attended for hearing on 25.01.2018. After examining the pleadings and submissions of both parties, the revisional authority has dismissed the revision application.
(c) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19809/2018 which was allowed and revisional order was set aside with a direction to dispose of the revision in accordance with law after giving notice and affording an opportunity of being heard.
(d) While so, after determination of the lease of the petitioner earlier, some lease applications were received and pending for consideration. The lease application of P.Sandeep Reddy is one among them. While so, as per the orders in W.P.No.19809/2018, the revisional authority vide Memo No.6224/M.1(1)/2018-2 dated 15.10.2019 called for fresh hearing on 22.10.2019. The petitioner attended the hearing. After hearing both parties, revision application was dismissed upholding the determination order passed by the Director of Mines.
(e) It is submitted that since the transfer of the quarry lease, the petitioner has not operated the lease and has not taken single mineral dispatch permit and not paid yearly advanced dead rent and other taxes. He simply blocked the leased area without any production causing loss of revenue to the Government exchequer. The petitioner has to pay total amount of Rs.50,03,023/- to the Government as on 28.02.2020 in the form of dead rent, income tax, land assessment and interest etc. Against the said order, the petitioner filed present writ petition and this Court passed interim order directing to pay Rs.32,73,470/- within two weeks 6 from the date of the order to 3rd respondent and offer Bank Guarantee issued by any nationalized bank for an amount of Rs.17,29,553/- within three weeks from the date of the order and on such fulfillment of the condition, the petitioner shall be permitted to conduct mining operations in respect of the lease. However, the petitioner has not paid the amount within the prescribed time.
(f) It is further submitted that after determination of the Quarry lease, in the same area quarry lease was granted in favour of Sri P.Sandeep Reddy over an extent of 11.101 Hectares in Sy.No.2117 of Talupula Village. Recently the said P.Sandeep Reddy submitted necessary documents and payment challans and due to pendency of the present writ petition quarry lease could not be entered into with the said Sandeep Reddy. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The petitioner filed reply against the counter affidavit. It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2020 of this Court to deposit the amounts, the petitioner could not comply with the same immediately due to COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown and subsequently the petitioner complied with the said direction and filed I.A.No.1/2021 to condone the delay. In view of the orders of the Court, the respondents cannot consider the application of P.Sandeep Reddy and any deposits made by him for the execution of lease also cannot be considered.
5. W.P.No.11689/2021 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that even after complying the order in W.P.No.3708/2020 the Assistant Director of Mines did not permit the petitioner to operate the mining and 7 in the meanwhile, since the lease period was coming to an end, the petitioner submitted a renewal application on 14.09.2020 in Form-Q as per Rule 12(v)(h)(xii). Since there was delay of about 100 days in submission of renewal application, the petitioner filed delay condonation petition to the Director of Mines & Geology on 14.09.2020 explaining the reasons for the delay i.e., due to COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown. However, the Director of Mines & Geology passed the impugned order dated 24.05.2021 dismissing the delay condonation petition filed along with renewal application. The Director has not considered the reasons submitted by the petitioner in a right perspective. Learned counsel thus prayed to allow both the writ petitions.
6. Heard Smt. N.Shobha, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) representing the respondents.
7. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the impugned revisional order is a non-speaking order, inasmuch as, except extracting the past history and concluding that the revision application was dismissed by upholding the lease determination order of the Director of Mines & Geology, 1st respondent has not given any reasons much less cogent reasons for dismissal of the revision. She would argue, as against the breaches imputed against the petitioner in the lease determination order dated 23.03.2017, the petitioner's categorical submission is that in view of serious family disputes and problems the petitioner had to shift from Chennai to Srilanka and stay there for a considerable period and in those unavoidable circumstances, the 8 petitioner was unable to inform the mining authorities about his change of address and his inability to excavate the leased mine and also to pay the usual mineral revenue to the Department. All those events had occurred in unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has pellucidly narrated those compelling circumstances and his inability to conduct mining operations in the first revision application dated 29.06.2017 filed against the lease determination order dated 23.03.2017. Learned counsel lamented that till date three revision orders were passed including the present one, but in none, neither an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his arguments of his case nor the grounds raised in the revision applications were considered in a sympathetic and equitable manner. All the revision orders were passed in a slipshod manner and therefore, on previous occasions, this Court in successive writ petitions intervened in favour of the petitioner and directed the 1st respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and dispose of the writ petition by affording opportunity of hearing to him. Taking this Court to the earlier order in W.P.No.19809/2018, learned counsel would submit that this Court had observed that there was a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice by 1st respondent and ultimately directed the 1st respondent for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law after giving notice and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that in the light of the above order, the revision petition was heard on 22.10.2019 wherein the petitioner has clearly elaborated that there was no irregularity on his part except non-payment of dead rent 9 in view of the conditions beyond his control. However, the revision was dismissed in a mechanical manner with a laconic order. Apart from brief, the reason for dismissal of the revision that petitioner was always avoiding payment of mineral revenue is also not correct, for, learned counsel would submit, the petitioner since inspection has been reiterating that he was ready to pay all the arrears and in fact on the order of this Court, he deposited Rs.32,73,470/- towards arrears of dead rent and also submitted Bank Guarantee for 17,29,553/- towards interest which would amply demonstrate his bonafides. Of course, due to the prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic during the relevant period there was some delay in depositing the amounts within the stipulated time, for which, the petitioner filed a separate application to condone the delay. Learned counsel would thus argue that the dismissal of revision that too without giving plausible and cogent reasons is illegal, unjust, unsustainable. She cited the following decisions to argue that the orders of the quasi judicial authorities shall be supported by the reasons lest they should be liable to be rejected.
(i) S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India1
(ii) G.I. Estates, Guntur District v. State of Andhra Pradesh2
(iii) A.Ramanaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh3
(iv)B.Rajan v. State of Andhra Pradesh4
(v) M/s. Modern Minerals v. State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P.No.12949 of 2020] 1 (1990) 4 SCC 594 2 2016 (5) ALD 715 3 2014 (1) ALD 773 4 2021 (1) ALD 46 (AP) 10
8. In oppugnation, learned AAG argued that the petitioner obtained transfer of mining lease from Annam Reddy Udhika Priya for the unexpired period upto 28.05.2021 vide mining lease deed dated 29.04.2010 and obtained work order. With inimitable invective he would submit, since 2010 the petitioner did not excavate even a gram of galaxy mineral and left the mine a virgin and thus caused huge revenue loss to the Exchequer. Learned AAG would submit that this fact is evident from the inspection report dated 22.07.2014 submitted by the Assistant Geologist. Referring to the said report, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that since the date of lease deed in 2010 he did not excavate the mine and did not obtain dispatch permits and committed default in payment of mineral revenue arrears such as advance dead rent, surface rent, interest, income tax etc. In addition, he did not submit environmental clearance certificate from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF) and Pollution Certificate from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. Further, he was guilty of several defaults such as non-submission of mining plan, non-erection of boundary pillars etc. Therefore, the 3rd respondent submitted lease determination proposal dated 05.08.2014 to 2nd respondent under Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Thereupon, a note file No.7082/R4-1/2014 was submitted to the Government with the lease determination proposals and the Government has issued show cause notice dated 21.10.2014 to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, since the Quartz and 30 other major minerals were declared as minor minerals and power was vested on the Director of Mines & Geology to deal with the same, again a notice dated 11 19.01.2017 was issued to the petitioner. Learned AAG would further submit that since the notice was returned with the endorsement there was no such person, the A.D, Mines deputed Senior Assistant to Chennai to serve the show cause notice, who found petitioner was not there in his official address and on enquiry came to know that some third party purchased the said house four years back and residing therein. In those circumstances, since the breaches committed by petitioner were grave, the 2nd respondent has determined the lease vide his order dated 23.03.2017. Learned AAG emphasized, the said order was perfectly legal in all respects. Subsequently the petitioner filed revision and the same was dismissed upholding the lease determination order since the petitioner failed to submit any cogent reason for non-excavation of the mine since the date of lease. Learned AAG while admitting that due to minor procedural lapses in the revision orders that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing those orders and thereby the writ petitions were allowed and matter was remitted back, however, would argue that the factum of non-excavation of mine for several years and causing loss of revenue to the Government which led the authority to dismiss the revisions could not be effectively controverted by the petitioner. He would emphasize that the aim of the petitioner is only to dragon the litigation and block the mine to get undue advantage. He submitted that the petitioner was never diligent and even he failed to deposit the amount within the time prescribed by this Court and he also failed to file the renewal application within time. All these 12 would show his callous attitude. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner is guilty of breaches in conducting mining operations?
2. If so, whether the Director of Mines & Geology / 2nd respondent was legally justified in determining the lease of the petitioner ?
3. Whether the revision order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is violative of principles of natural justice and devoid of reasons and liable to be set aside?
10. Point Nos.1 & 2:
These two points since intertwined, they are taken up together. I bestowed my consideration to the above arguments and the facts of which, the admitted are those, the petitioner, a resident of Chennai, obtained transfer of quartz lease over an extent of 36 hectors from Annam Reddy Udhika Priya for the unexpired period upto 28.05.2021 vide mining lease deed dated 29.04.2010.
11. While so, the inspection report dated 22.07.2014 submitted by Assistant Geologist, a copy of which is filed along with material papers by the AAG would project some lethal breaches committed by the petitioner. The first and grave one is, since the execution of the lease deed, the lessee did not conduct mining operations; nextly he did not obtain dispatch permits; did not pay advance dead rent, surface rent, interest, income tax; not submitted mining scheme for next five years, 13 annual accounts, environmental clearance certificate from MoEF and pollution certificate from APCCB; and not erected boundary pillars.
(a) Basing on the above report, the 3rd respondent submitted lease determination proposals vide letter No.3411/M/2009, dated 05.08.2014 to the Director of Mines & Geology wherein, while narrating the breaches reported by the Assistant Geologist, he stated that arrears of Rs.1,84,432/- as per M.R.A was due from the petitioner for the year 2013 and 2014. In the proforma enclosed under Rule 28(1) of M.C. Rules, 1960 he categorically mentioned in Column No.21 that the mining lease has to be treated as lapsed under Rule 28 (1) of M.C. Rules, 1960 as the lessee was not working since 2010.
(b) Basing on the proposals, a note file No.7082/R4-1/2014 was submitted to the Government. Thereafter a show cause notice vide memo No.10205/M.III(1)/2014, dated 21.10.2014 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Department to the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days. A copy of the show cause notice is enclosed with the material papers.
(c) While so, in the meanwhile 31 major minerals including Quartz were declared as minor minerals vide G.O.Ms.No.34, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department dated 14.03.2016 and powers were conferred on Director of Mines & Geology to deal with them. In that view, a fresh show cause notice No.7082/R5-1/2014 dated 19.01.2017 was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why the lease shall not be determined in terms of Rule 12 5(h)(xii) of 14 APMMC Rules, 1966. A copy of the notice is filed along with the material papers.
(d) Since the said show cause notice was returned un-served, it appears the 3rd respondent sent his Senior Assistant Sri Shaik Meera Hussain to Chennai to serve show cause notice personally on the petitioner. The said Senior Assistant returned and submitted report dated 15.03.2017 stating that the petitioner was not found in the official address and when enquired with the person residing in the said address, he informed that he purchased the said house and living since last four years and refused to give written statement to that effect. The Senior Assistant enclosed the photographs of the house and submitted his report.
12. In the above circumstance, the 2nd respondent taking into consideration the breaches reported by the office of Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaneru and due to lack of response from the petitioner to hear his version, ultimately passed the lease determination order vide lease proceedings in D.Dis.Prod. No.7082/R5-1/2014, dated 23.03.2017 in terms of Rule 12 5(h)(xii) of APMMC Rules, 1966.
13. I have carefully gone through the lease determination order wherein the following breaches were imputed against the petitioner:
1. Not paid mineral revenue arrears of Rs.1,84,432/-
2. The lease is not working since 2010.
3. Not submitted monthly & annual returns
4. Not erected boundary pillars
5. Not submitted the scheme of mining.15
There was no response from the petitioner to deny above breaches as his whereabouts could not be traced to serve notice on him. Be that it may, the petitioner, it appears, returned after sometime and filed a revision before the 1st respondent on 29.06.2017 challenging the lease determination order wherein he submitted a vague explanation for his breaches that due to some family and personal problems he shifted his family to Sri Lanka and hence he could not look after the mining lease and failed to make payment of royalties and other charges to the Government. He prayed to set aside the impugned order and submitted that he was ready to pay entire mineral revenue due to the Government.
14. Thus, while admitting the breaches, his explanation is that since on account of family problems he left for Sri Lanka, he could not conduct mining operations and pay the statutory dues. It should be noted that we do not find in the grounds of revision when he left for Sri Lanka and whether he made any efforts either to send his employees to the respondent to narrate the facts or tried to make a letter correspondence with the authorities explaining his difficult situations seeking time for conducting mining operations and for payment of dues. No such attempt was seemingly made by the petitioner. Revision filed by him was naturally and rightly rejected by the 1st respondent vide order dated 03.11.2017.
15. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41963 of 2017 which was allowed on 13.12.2017 on the sole ground that the revision order did not reflect that an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner 16 before sending the order in the form of letter to him. A single Judge while thus allowing the writ petition and directing the 1st respondent for disposal of revision according to the procedure established by law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, however, categorically mentioned that he was not going into the merits of the case of the petitioner. Later the revision was again heard by the 1st respondent and dismissed on 24.05.2018 upholding the orders of the Director of Mines & Geology. The said order was again challenged in W.P.No.19809/2018 on the main ground that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not accorded to the petitioner. According to him he received phone call on the afternoon of 18.02.2018 at Chennai informing that the revision would be taken on 19.02.2018 and immediately he rushed to Amaravathi and requested time to engage an Advocate. He was informed that the revision would be heard on the next date of hearing, but without hearing him, the impugned order was passed on 24.05.2018. Believing the petitioner's version and rejecting the contention of the Government Pleader that hearing was held on 19.02.2018 and thereafter only the order was passed, learned Judge allowed the writ petition and restored the revision to file for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
16. Thereafter the 1st respondent heard arguments of both parties on 22.10.2019 and ultimately dismissed the revision petition on 02.01.2020. This time the revision order is challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition on the main ground that it is not a speaking order and no 17 reasons were assigned for dismissing the revision. On a careful study of the entire material and the impugned order, I find no force in the submission of the petitioner. The impugned order would show that the revisional authority has narrated the entire past history which led the 2nd respondent to determine the lease and thereafter petitioner's filing successive writ petitions and seeking re-hearing of the revisions etc., From the entire narration, what ultimately surfaces is, from the date of obtaining transfer of lease in the year 2010, the petitioner did not conduct mining operations and pay the statutory dues to the department. Further, he did not submit mining scheme for the future period and also did not submit monthly and annual returns and did not erect boundary pillars. Those breaches could not be effectively answered by the petitioner except saying that due to family problems he shifted to Sri Lanka. In my considered view, that cannot be a ground to exonerate the petitioner for not informing the authorities about his travails and predicaments. No bona fide and diligent attempt seems to be made by him by either sending his representative or making letter correspondence with the authorities seeking time for conducting mining operations and payment of the dues. Therefore, he was totally lackadaisical in his attitude. A person who does not show diligence cannot seek for equity.
17. In this backdrop, in my considered view the 1st respondent after narrating the entire history, has rightly upheld the lease determination order passed by the Director of Mines & Geology / 2nd respondent. Rule 12 (5)(h)(xii) clearly lays down that in case of any breach on the part of 18 licensee or lessee of any covenant or conditions contained in the grant, the Director may after giving an opportunity to the defaulter, determine the license and take possession of the premises. In the instant case the breaches are not disputed but only a cryptic and vague explanation was given which was not found favour with either the Director or the Revisional Authority.
18. The petitioner harps and carps that the order is bereft of reasons. However, in my considered view the entire history narrated by the 1st respondent in the impugned order itself is self-explanatory of the irresponsible attitude of the petitioner. Therefore, it is too much to ask for a detailed reasoning where the petitioner neither denied the breaches nor submitted any plausible ground for condoning the breaches. Single sentenced statement that due to some family and personal problems he shifted his family to Sri Lanka, in my considered view, will not and cannot earn any sympathy or favourable order unless the statement is supported by the sincere, honest and diligent efforts made and manifested before the authority. The petitioner placed reliance on the decisions that the authority should give reasons. In the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court after perusing a catena of decisions, has observed thus:
36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less 19 significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. (emphasis supplied)"
19. Thus while holding that the reasons indeed to be recorded by the administrative authorities to avoid arbitrariness sneaking into their decisions, however added that the reasons need not be elaborate as in the decision of Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. It was also held that the appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms the order of original authority need not give separate reasons if they agree with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.
20. Coming to the case on hand, as already stated, the breaches were not disputed but sought to be explained by the petitioner on the strength 20 of a sole ground. This ground was not available to the original authority i.e., the Director, Mines & Geology as at the time of his order, in spite of best efforts the authority could not get the presence of the petitioner. It is only in the revisional stage the petitioner in the grounds of revision projected a one sentenced ground that due to some family personal problems he shifted his family to Sri Lanka and therefore could not operate the Mine. In the first revision order dated 03.11.2017 the revisional authority did not agree with him and found the disinterestedness of the leaseholder and dismissed the revision. Of course, the said order was set aside on a different ground. In the second revision order dated 24.05.2018 the authority while narrating the facts clearly observed in Para-12 that even to receive the show cause notice the applicant has no registered office at the address shown in the records and lapse in communicating the change of address in advance to the competent authority established his disinterest in working the lease beyond reasonable doubt. On those observations, the revision was dismissed. The said order was of course set aside on a different ground that no sufficient opportunity was given to him to hear. Coming to the impugned revision order dated 02.01.2020, again while narrating the entire history, the revisional authority ultimately held that the revision applicant is always avoiding payment of mineral revenue and conveniently litigating from time to time to block the area and dismissed the revision.
21
21. When the entire facts and successive orders are holistically taken into consideration, it is difficult to conclude that the authority has not given any reason at all. The irresponsible attitude of the petitioner was deprecated in each order and successive revisions were dismissed. So on a conspectus of facts and law, I find no merits in the case of the petitioner. I hold that the respondent authorities have rightly determined the lease. Hence the W.P.No.3708 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed. As a consequent, W.P.No.11689 of 2021 is also liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result the Writ Petition No.3708 of 2020 and W.P.No.11689 of 2021 are dismissed and the respondent authorities are directed to adjust the amounts if any deposited by the petitioner pending writ petitions, against the statutory dues payable by the petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 20.06.2022 krk 22 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO W.P.Nos.3708 of 2020 and 11689 of 2021 20th June, 2022 mva/krk