Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 731 (MP)

Kala Singh v. Government of India

2012-07-18

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
ORDER 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Government and also the order of the Revisional authority (Central Government) dated 1.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) whereby the licence to carry out mining licence in question of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that before passing such a harsh order of cancellation, the State Government ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner as required under rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short, Rules of 1960). Learned senior counsel further submits that since the mandatory provision has not been followed by the State Government and straightaway by passing a very harsh order (Annexure P-3) by cancelling the mining lease is not only arbitrary but runs de hors to the principles of natural justice. 3. It has also been put forth by learned senior counsel that although in the order of the Revisional Court (Annexure P-5), it has been held that no show cause notice was issued, but, the order of the State Government was upheld because the royalty amount was not deposited by the present petitioner. The contention of learned senior counsel is that had the show cause notice been given to the petitioner, it would have been shown by the petitioner that there is no breach of any of the conditions. Thus, it has been contended by learned senior counsel that by allowing this petition, the orders passed by the Revisional authority (respondent No.1) as well as of respondent No.2 State Government be set aside. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Revisional authority heard the matter on 28.8.2009 but did not pass the order for a period of one year and the same was passed on 1.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) and in all fairness, after such a long period, fresh opportunity should be given to the petitioner to address the matter. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Divya Kirti Bohre, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that because no royalty was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the licence to carry out the mining lease in question was cancelled. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Divya Kirti Bohre, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that because no royalty was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the licence to carry out the mining lease in question was cancelled. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that the show cause notice dated 10.9.2004 issued to the petitioner before passing the order, has been filed as Annexure R-1 along withthe return, and, therefore, it cannot be said that before passing the impugned order Annexure P-3 by the State Government runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and hence this petition sans substance and the same be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On bare perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by the Revisional authority, it is gathered that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before cancelling the licence to carry out the mining lease. To me, the licence to carry out the mining lease can be cancelled if there is any breach of any of the conditions prescribed under the Rules. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1960 contemplates several conditions and if any of them is breached it should be specified in the show cause notice to cancel the mining lease. If rule 27 of the Rules is taken intoconsideration it would reveal that sending of show cause notice is mandatory. The show cause notice was not sent and this was the case of the respondent No.2 State Government before the Revisional authority also while sending the parawise comments of the grounds of revision before respondent No.1 as it appears from para 5 of the order of the Revisional authority and for the first time a new stand has been taken before this Court in the return that the notice was sent vide Annexure R-1 filed along with the return. In these State of Affairs, the authenticity of Annexure R-1 i.e. show cause notice becomes highly doubtful because had it been given earlier, certainly the parawise comments sent by the State Government, its copy would have been sent to the Revisional authority. 7. In these State of Affairs, the authenticity of Annexure R-1 i.e. show cause notice becomes highly doubtful because had it been given earlier, certainly the parawise comments sent by the State Government, its copy would have been sent to the Revisional authority. 7. Learned Government Advocate has invited my attention to para 5(i) of the order of Revisional authority and submitted that the show cause notice dated 10.9.2004 was sent and it has been so stated in the comments. However, specifically it has been dealt by the Revisional authority that although there is an averment of sending notice on 10.9.2004, but the State Government has not enclosed any copy of the show cause notice along with their reply. Thus, in these State of Affairs, the authenticity of the show cause notice dated 10.9.2004 (Annexure R-1) filed along with the return for the first time before this Court becomes highly doubtful. 8. In all fairness when the matter was heard by the Revisional authority on 28.8.2009, the order should have been passed within a reasonable period but after a lapse of one year, the said order is passed which is not expected from the Revisional authority because the justice should not only be done but, it should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done. 9. Looking to the entire gamut of the matter, it would be appropriate to set aside both the orders passed by the Revisional authority dated 1.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Government and the State Government-respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and may pass a fresh order. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.