Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 515 (RAJ)

Kaushaliya Devi v. State

2005-02-16

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition a challenge is made to the order dated 15.1992 passed by the Mining Engineer Division II, Bundi whereby a mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 2. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease No. 52 of 1991 situated near Village Fetehpur, Tehsil and District - Bundi. The mining lease was for sand-stone and was granted on 20.2.1992 for a period of 10 years. The lease deed was registered on 9.4.1992. The petitioner started work at the quarry in question on execution of the lease. In surprise to the petitioner the order dated 15.1992 was received by him on 26.5.1992 whereby the mining lease granted to him was cancelled by the Mining Engineer. Being aggrieved by the same the present petition is preferred. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the lease granted in his favour was cancelled by the respondent Mining Engineer without affording an opportunity of hearing as required to be given under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting the position that no notice as required under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A was given to the petitioner. However, it is contended that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled as a consequence of acceptance of an appeal by the Addl. Director (Mines) whereby an order was passed to renew mining lease of Smt. Jasbir Kaur who was having mining lease for the same mining area in earlier years. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. 6. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act of 1957 provides that if the respondents want to terminate prospecting licence or mining lease they are required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the lease holder. It is admitted position in the present case that no such opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 7. In view of it, in my considered opinion the order passed by the Mining Engineer, Bundi is nonest in the eye of law. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order dated 15.1992 passed by the Mining Engineer is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.