Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 950 (JHR)

Natwar Lal Khataw Atha v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-09

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT : Narendra Nath Tiwari,J: In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing order No. 10/2007 dated 1.6.2007 passed in Revision Application No. 6/(5)/2005-RCI by the Mining Tribunal and for quashing memo No. 55 dated 11.1.2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Deputy Secretary, by the impugned order has revoked the prospecting licence granted to the petitioner on the ground that he failed to fulfill the requirement of Rule 15(1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Learned Mining Tribunal has affirmed the said order of the Deputy Secretary and dismissed the said revision application. The petitioner has further prayed for direction on the respondents to execute the lease deed pursuant to the prospecting license granted in his favour by memo No. 856M dated 12.8.2002. The claim of the petitioner is that he was granted prospecting license by the State of Jharkhand by order dated 12.8.2002 under the provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which has been arbitrarily revoked. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of revoking prospecting license has been passed without taking into consideration that the requisite fee and security amount could not be deposited within the prescribed period of 90 days due to illness of the petitioner. The petitioner by filing an application had brought the same to the notice of the concerned authorities and also submitted medical certificate of his illness. He was under treatment from 2nd September, 2002 to January, 2003. There was delay of only 50 days in depositing the requisite fee and security amount. The said circumstance has not been considered by the Director, Mines in spite of the recommendation of the District Mining Officer. The order of revocation of the prospecting license without considering the ground of illness supported by the document is arbitrary. The Mining Tribunal without considering the said fact and circumstance also erroneously dismissed the revision application by order dated 1.6.2007. The said impugned orders have been passed without taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 15 (1) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. They have also not taken into consideration the recommendation of the District Mining Officer. The respondents have contested the petitioner’s claim stating, interalia, that the State of Jharkhand had granted prospecting license to the petitioner for a period of 2 years by order dated 12.8.2002. They have also not taken into consideration the recommendation of the District Mining Officer. The respondents have contested the petitioner’s claim stating, interalia, that the State of Jharkhand had granted prospecting license to the petitioner for a period of 2 years by order dated 12.8.2002. According to the terms and the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner had to deposit prospecting fee and security deposit within a period of 90 days. Rule 15(1) of the M.C. Rules provides execution of lease deed within 90 days from the date of the communication of the order of granting prospecting license. The said Rule further provides that if no such deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the license. The petitioner failed to deposit security amount and the required fee within the stipulated period of 90 days. After lapse of considerable period, he filed an application for extension of time/condonation of delay on 15.1.2003. The petitioner, however, did not file application for extension of time before expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner who is himself at fault and did not comply with the legal requirement, has no tenable ground for raising any grievance against the respondents and challenging the said orders. The petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 15(1) within the prescribed period of 90 days. After expiry of the prescribed period, license granted to the petitioner was revoked by the competent authority. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had not deposited the security amount and prospecting fee within the period prescribed by law. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had not deposited the security amount and prospecting fee within the period prescribed by law. Rule 15(1) of the M.C. Rules reads as follows :- “License to be executed within three months Where on any application for a prospecting license an order has been made for the grant of such license, a deed granting such license shall be executed within 90 days of the date of the communication of the order or such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf, and if no such deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the license and in that event the fee paid shall be forfeited to the State Government.” It is clear from the said provision of Rule 15(1) of the M.C. Rules that the State Government has power to revoke the order granting license, if deed granting such license is not executed within 90 days from the date of communication due to default on the part of the applicant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to deposit the prospecting fee and security deposit within the prescribed time. On reading the provision I find that the State Government has discretion to allow an extended period for such purpose. However, the petitioner did not file any application seeking extension of time before expiry of 90 days. The Deputy Commissioner, on that basis, recommended for revocation of license. The State of Jharkhand, considering the same, issued the impugned order dated 11.1.2005 revoking the prospecting license. The petitioner filed revision application before Government of India under Rule 54 of the said Rules. The Tribunal considered all the aspects and passed its final order dated 1.6.2007 dismissing the petitioner’s petition. The orders passed by the State Government and learned Tribunal are based on reasons. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.