Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1139 (JHR)

Baijudih Stone Works v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-18

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 26.6.2014 in Revision Case No. 290/2012 whereby, application seeking extension of time has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the mining lease for minor mineral stone was granted in favour of one Basudeo Chaudhary vide indenture of lease dated 19.7.2001. The lease period was for 10 years and the said lease was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner. In terms of permission granted by the State Government on 10.5.2008, indenture of lease dated 28.5.2008 was executed in favour of the petitioner. On 26.2.2011, before expiry of the lease period, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of renewal of mining lease however, the report from the Circle Officer, Dhanwar and the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih was not received within the statutory period and therefore, the application seeking renewal of lease stood dismissed, which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 8.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 164/2011 under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which was disposed of on 1.9.2012. Again, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 290/2012, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.6.2014. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that within the time prescribed by the Commissioner, Mines, Environmental Clearance Certificate could not be produced by the petitioner and therefore, Revision Case No. 290/2012 was filed seeking extension of time. It is contended that the Environmental Clearance Certificate has been issued to the petitioner vide Memo dated 22.8.2014 and the same was received by the petitioner on 30.8.2014, however, in the meantime, Revision Case No. 290/2012 was dismissed on 26.6.2014. Referring to the orders passed in Revision Case No. 36/2013 and other cases vide Annexure-7 series, the learned Sr. counsel submits that in similar cases the Commissioner, Mines has granted extension of time. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned J.C to Advocate General, submits that the petitioner failed to produce the tracing map for fresh report from the Circle Officer, Dhanwar and the Divisional Forest Officer and therefore, the application for renewal stood dismissed in terms of provisions under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 164/2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.9.2012 extending further 90 days time for disposal of renewal application. The petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 164/2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.9.2012 extending further 90 days time for disposal of renewal application. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 issued letter dated 6.10.2012 to the petitioner for producing Environmental Clearance Certificate from the MOEF however, the petitioner failed to submit the same. Again letter dated 12.12.2012 was issued to the petitioner for furnishing Environmental Clearance Certificate, however, in the meantime, the period extended in Revision Case No. 164/2011 expired. It is contended that second revision case is not maintainable. The petitioner has filed Revision Case No. 290/2012, which has been dismissed holding that Environmental Clearance Certificate is mandatory for grant of mining lease. It is submitted that in view of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 26.6.2014 does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. I find that Revision Case No. 290/2012 was dismissed without adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Though the Commissioner, Mines has rightly noticed that no mining lease can be granted without Environmental Clearance Certificate, I find that the impugned order dated 26.6.2014 does not refer to the facts pleaded by the petitioner contending that the Environmental Clearance Certificate could not be obtained within the extended period of 90 days due to the reasons beyond its control. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has referred to the orders passed in Revision Case No. 36/2013 and other cases. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents does not deal with the assertion made in Paragraph 13 of the writ petition referring to the orders passed in Revision Case No. 36/2013 and other cases. I find that the impugned order dated 26.6.2014 is a non-speaking order. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, without entering into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 26.6.2014 is, hereby, quashed and Revision Case No. 290/2012 is remitted to the Court of the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi for a fresh consideration. The question of maintainability of Revision Case No. 290/2012 can be raised by the respondents before the Mines Commissioner. 7. I.A. No. 322/2015 stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly.