Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 418 (JHR)

Black Stone and Company v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-06

D.N.PATEL

body2010
Order Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 dated 18th July, 2009 at Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby, the revision application, preferred by the present petitioner, under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules; 2004 (in short 'The Rules, 2004') has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner was granted mining lease in the year, 1993 for ten years. As the lease period was completed in the year, 2003, a renewal application was preferred in time, but, the concerned respondent authorities had not decided the said application and sat tight upon the application. Against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, revision application was preferred being Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 and an order was passed by the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 17th September, 2005 (Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition) and the matter was remanded for its fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj has decided the renewal application, preferred by the present petitioner vide order dated 12th April, 2006 at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Lease was renewed for further period for ten years, but, again the documents of the lease could not be executed and looking to the deeming provision enshrined in Rule 28 of the Rules, 2004, again, what was granted is deemed to have been cancelled and again, because of this inaction on the part of the respondents authorities, a fresh renewal application bearing Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 was instituted before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, who has dismissed the said revision application vide order dated 18th July, 2009 (Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner) without any application of mind and without assigning reasons, whatsoever. This second revision application no. 113 of 2008 has been brushed aside only on the ground that earlier Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 was decided. It appears that the revisional authority has not taken any care to look at the earlier order passed in Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 dated 17th September, 2005, which was altogether for a different aspect of the matter. Earlier, the State authorities had not decided the renewal application and therefore, the revision application was preferred. It appears that the revisional authority has not taken any care to look at the earlier order passed in Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 dated 17th September, 2005, which was altogether for a different aspect of the matter. Earlier, the State authorities had not decided the renewal application and therefore, the revision application was preferred. In the facts of the present case, Revision Application No. 113 of 2008 was instituted mainly for the reason that after renewal of the lease by order at Annexure-2, the lease agreement was never executed. Both things are absolutely separate and independent to each other. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and let matter be remanded back for its fresh decision, within stipulated time, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to its representative. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents. who has submitted that all faults lie upon the petitioner for non-execution of the renewal lease agreement and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, is absolutely in consonance with the facts and law and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand dated 18th July, 2009 in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008, mainly on the following facts and reasons:- (i) The present petitioner was granted mining lease in the year, 1993, for ten years. (ii) Upon completion of this lease period, an application for renewal of the lease was preferred, which was not decided and therefore, looking to the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004, if a renewal application is not decided within 90 days, it will be deemed to have been rejected and therefore, against inaction on the part of the respondents authorities a revision application was preferred by the present petitioner bearing Revision Case No. 200 of 2003 before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi. (iii) It appears that the revisional authority has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj for its fresh decision upon a renewal application, vide order dated 17th September, 2005 in Revision Application No. 200 of 2003 (Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition). (iv) It appears that thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj has decided the renewal application and the lease was granted vide order dated 12th April, 2006 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition). (iv) It appears that as per Rule 28 of the Rules, 2004, if the lease is not executed within a period of 90 days again, what is gained by the petitioner by the order at Annexure-2 has been lost and therefore, again revision application bearing no. 113 of 2008 was instituted by the petitioner before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, under Rule 62. (v) It appears that the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, has dismissed this revision application no. 113 of 2008 vide order dated 18th July, 2009 and the said order reads as under:- "18.7.2009. This revision application is subject matter of earlier revision case no. 200/2003 order dt. 17.9.2005/21.11.2005 passed by the Court of Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Since this issue has been finally disposed of earlier, as such there is no need to reopen this matter. Accordingly this revision application is dismissed. Sd/ (S.K. Satapathy) Mines Commissioner Jharkhand." Thus, looking to the aforesaid order, it appears that the revisional authority has not, at all, applied his mind. Earlier revision application no. 200 of 2003 order dated 17th September, 2005, has nothing to do with the present revision application. Earlier revision application was preferred because of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities for not deciding the revision application whereas, the new revision application no. 113 of 2008 was preferred as the lease deed was not executed. Thus, the revisional authorities while passing the impugned order has not cared to see the earlier order and has not taken any care to read the earlier revision application and the order passed dated 17th September, 2005. The whole approach of the revisional authority while passing the order dated 18th July, 2009 in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 is a mechanical approach. Had any care would have been taken by the revisional authorities, the aforesaid order could have been avoided. 5. The whole approach of the revisional authority while passing the order dated 18th July, 2009 in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 is a mechanical approach. Had any care would have been taken by the revisional authorities, the aforesaid order could have been avoided. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the revisional authority dated 18th July, 2009 in Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 and I hereby, direct the revisional authority to decide Revision Case No. 113 of 2008 afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to its representative, within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.