Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 5 August, 2009
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2778 of 2007
Prakash Chandra Choudhary Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand
3.The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
4.The Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondents: JC to SC (Mines)
---
5. 05.08.2009Heard Shri Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to SC (Mines for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.9.2005 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand (Respondent No.
2) in Revision Case No. 79 of 2003, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.7.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (Respondent No. 3) prematurely cancelling the petitioner's mining lease, was dismissed..
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's lease has been cancelled without giving any prior notice to him, nor any opportunity of being heard and furthermore, such order of cancellation has been passed on the basis of some office note put up by the Assistant Mining Officer which appears to have been cryptically accepted by the Deputy Commissioner without application of mine and likewise, the Revisional Authority has also dismissed the revision without appreciating the legal issue raised by the petitioner including the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard.
4. From the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it appears that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the petitioner's mining lease was cancelled and neither in the order of the Revisional Authority. It is sought to be explained that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and several other mining lease holders when it was found that they were using explosive substance in their mining operations without obtaining the requisite licence for use of explosives. Investigation report confirmed that the petitioner and several other mining lease holders had committed the offence and on the basis of charge sheet, they were criminally prosecuted. On the basis of the investigation report, decision taken was taken by the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the mining lease of the petitioner.
5. From the documents including annexure-2 which is purportedly the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that it was on the basis of office note put up by the Assistant Mining Officer, informing therein that a police case was instituted against the petitioner and several other mining lease holders and the Assistant Mining Officer had recommended for cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner had merely endorsed the recommendation of the Assistant Mining. It is evident from the above facts that while passing the order of cancellation of the petitioner's mining lease, the Appropriate Authority had not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and as it appears, has merely passed a mechanical order. Such order cannot possibly be sustained in law not only for the reason that it was passed without application of mind, but also on account of the fact that prior to passing of such an order, admittedly the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of being heard.
6. For the same reason, the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, cannot be sustained in law in view of the fact that the same appears to have been passed without application of mind, as also primarily on the ground advanced by the petitioner regarding lack of adequate opportunity being given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to a judgment of this court passed in the case of S.M. Abdullah and others vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(C) No. 6649 of 2005), would explain that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ application, were the mining lease holders against whom the same FIR was lodged in which the petitioner was also named as an accused. The same impugned order was passed in respect of the other mining lease holders including the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 6649 of 2005 and after considering the nature of the impugned order, on being satisfied that the same was perverse and not sustainable in law, this court had quashed the impugned orders both of the Deputy Commissioner as also that of the Revisional Authority and consequent thereof, mining lease of the lease holders was restored.
8. In the light of the above facts, this application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.9.2005 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 79 of 2003 (Annexure-3) and earlier order dated 28.6.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, are hereby quashed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Ranjeet/