Jharkhand High Court
Grands Mining vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 23 October, 2019
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5118 of 2019
----
Grands Mining ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
----
rd Order No. 02 : Dated 23 October, 2019 The order dated 16.09.2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Pakur is under challenge. The following grounds have been agitated by the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order :-
(i) The order dated 13.06.2018 by which the demand notice has been issued as also a reply has been directed to be submitted as to why the lease granted in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled but the said order has been quashed by the High Court as would appear from Annexure-7 as annexed to the writ petition by directing to treat the impugned letter as show cause notice both for penalty as well as for cancellation of mining lease and to pass the order in accordance with law.
But, according to the petitioner no such adequate and sufficient opportunity has been provided while taking such decision as on 16.09.2019 (impugned).
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has passed an order constituting a committee of five officials, but only two officials have conducted the enquiry that too, in absence of the petitioner and as such the said enquiry report is not a reliable piece of evidence.
Furthermore, as would appear from communication dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-13) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur whereby and whereunder the report submitted by the two men committee has been found to suffer from infirmity and it was unanimously decided to rectify the report.
(iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur while taking such decision, has put reliance upon the said enquiry report without providing the copy of the enquiry report and without compliance of the direction passed by this Court, annexed as Annexure-7, i.e. without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and without providing the relevant documents.
(iv) Apart from depositing the amount of penalty, the mining and transportation work has been stopped in exercise of power conferred under Section 27(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and as per the condition stipulated under Clause 3 of Part IX but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the provision of Rule 27(2) of the Rule, 2004, there is no provision to keep in abeyance the mining and transportation work as also Clause 3 of Part 9 of the Rule, 2004 no such condition is stipulated therein.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State has sought for time for a week to seek instruction and filed detailed counter affidavit replying the para-wise averments made in the writ petition as also the questions which have been raised by the petitioner as indicated hereinabove.
As prayed for, list this case on 06.11.2019 under the appropriate heading.
At this juncture, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that similar issues also are involved in item No. 78 and 79 of the supplementary cause list i.e. W.P.(C) No. 5122 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 5161 of 2019 respectively and therefore, prayer has been made to list these writ petitions along with the present one.
Accordingly, list this case along with W.P.(C) No. 5122 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 5161 of 2019.
In the meanwhile, the State respondents will file counter affidavit in these writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 5122 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 5161 of 2019] also.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/