ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order contained in Memo No.1610 dated 09.12.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the mining lease granted to the petitioner in respect of Rarhia-Ambatari, Sirsia Sand Ghat, situated at Panchayat – Rarhia, pertaining to Plot Nos.475 & 743, area 5.60 acres, has been prematurely terminated on the ground that the petitioner has undertaken mining of sand in Monsoon Period during the Financial Year 2016-17. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent no. 2) issued a public notice inviting auction for settlement of various Sand Ghats in the District of Deoghar. In the said notice, details of Panchayat, Sand Ghat, area, reserved money etc. were mentioned and Rarhia-Ambatari Sirsia Sand Ghat was at serial no.22 of the said notice. The petitioner having found himself eligible participated in the auction and he was allotted Rarhia-Ambatari Sirsia Sand Ghat, situated over plot nos.475 & 743 having an area of 05.60 acres and, accordingly, letter of intent contained in Memo no.1065 dated 26.06.2015 was issued in favour of the petitioner for the years i.e 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. As per the provision of Jharkhand Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner was to obtain approval of his mining plan for carrying out excavation of sand. Accordingly, the petitioner got its mining plan approved by the designated authority vide letter contained in memo no.1344 dated 22.07.2015. The petitioner was also granted environmental clearance from the office of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand (in short ‘SEIAA’) for carrying out its mining project in respect of Rarhia-Ambatari Sirsia Sand Ghat vide letter no.1492 dated 25.08.2015. Thereafter, an agreement dated 11.09.2015 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent-State of Jharkhand, permitting the petitioner to carry out excavation from Rarhia-Ambatari Sirsia Sand Ghat. The petitioner continued to excavate sand as per the terms and conditions of the license. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no.1490 dated 28.11.2017, as to why the action be not initiated against him for violation of Part-IV of the Mining Plan and Clause 12 of environment clearance granted in his favour. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no.1490 dated 28.11.2017, as to why the action be not initiated against him for violation of Part-IV of the Mining Plan and Clause 12 of environment clearance granted in his favour. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply. However, another notice was served upon the petitioner vide letter No.1544 dated 01.12.2017, whereby he was directed to show cause as to why a proceeding be not initiated against him for violating the terms of the mining plan and environment clearance, as the petitioner indulged himself in the activities of excavation and transportation of sand during the monsoon period in the year 2016-17. The petitioner submitted his reply to the respondent no.4 which was received on 08.12.2017. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide order contained in Memo No.1610 dated 09.12.2017 has cancelled the mining lease granted in his favour in respect of Birniya Sand Ghat prematurely. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been carrying on his mining activity strictly in accordance with the mining plan and even in the show cause notice and/or termination order, no specific instance has been elaborated indicating the alleged violation committed by the petitioner with respect to the mining plan. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has excavated sand during monsoon season of the year 2016-17. The learned counsel, while referring to Clause 11 of the environment clearance given to the petitioner by the SEIAA vide letter dated 25th August, 2015, submits that it should have been ensured by the district authority that no mining is carried out during monsoon season. It was the duty of the authorities to issue specific letter by clarifying the period of monsoon season to the petitioner and other mining lease holders so as to ensure that no mining activity is carried out during the said period. In fact, for the year 2017-18, such letter was issued on 28th June, 2017 to all mining lessees, including the petitioner. The said procedure was also followed in the district of Dumka also. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has annexed the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 18.05.2017, whereby the Sand Ghats allottees were intimated about the monsoon season in the district, restricting them from excavating sand during that period. The said procedure was also followed in the district of Dumka also. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has annexed the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 18.05.2017, whereby the Sand Ghats allottees were intimated about the monsoon season in the district, restricting them from excavating sand during that period. It is further submitted that no letter was issued by the district authorities of Deoghar putting such a prohibition for the year 2016-17. Thus, the district authorities cannot treat the mining done by the petitioner during the alleged monsoon season for the year 2016-17 as violative of terms of environment clearance and Clause 17 of the Part-III of the mining lease. In fact, during the year 2016-17, Deoghar district witnessed complete dry spell and there was no onset of monsoon in the said district. Due to the said reason, no letter was issued by the district authorities of Deoghar including the District Mining Officer to the mining lessees for the year 2016-17 to stop mining operation in the Sand Ghats in the monsoon season. It is further submitted that in the counter affidavit also, the stand of the respondents is that when there is a strict prohibition for lifting of sand in monsoon season, it is immaterial whether there was a dry spell during the monsoon season 2016-17. Thus, the said statement made by the respondents is an admission to the effect that there was no rainfall during the monsoon season for the year 2016-17 in Deoghar district. It is also submitted that in absence of issuance of any such letter by the district authorities prohibiting the petitioner from carrying out the mining activity during the monsoon season 2016-17 it can only be said to be a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner for which the lease agreement itself should not have been terminated by the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that during the monsoon period, no statutory challans like transit challans/transporters challan necessary for transportation of minerals are issued by the respective district authorities as the excavation and transportation of sand are stopped during the monsoon season, however, in the District of Deoghar during the year 2016-17, transit challans and/or statutory forms for transportation of minerals were issued to all settlees of Sand Ghats. Thus, the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondents themselves. Thus, the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondents themselves. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the environment clearance and sand ghat settlement agreement by lifting sand in the monsoon season of 2016-17 from the sand ghat settled in his favour. The National Green Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, directed the authorities vide order dated 9.11.2017 passed in O.A No.120/2016/EZ (M.D.Rizwan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) to furnish the action taken report regarding illegal sand mining in the District of Deoghar. On receiving the direction from NGT Kolkata, the concerned District authorities found that the petitioner had been lifting sand during monsoon season 2016-17 from the sand ghat settled in his favour. The petitioner was issued show cause notice in pursuance of which he filed the reply, however, the same was found unsatisfactory. Thus, the respondent no.2 cancelled the petitioner’s settlement of the sand ghat for violating the terms and conditions of the environment clearance granted vide letter no.1610 dated 09.12.2017. It is further submitted that there was a specific condition mentioned in Clause 11 of the environmental clearance that no sand would be lifted in the monsoon season. The monsoon period has also been specified in Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guideline, 2016 (Appendix: Table-9) and as such further letter in this context was not needed. It is also submitted that since there was a strict prohibition for lifting of sand in the monsoon season, it is immaterial whether Deoghar district found dry spell in monsoon season 2016-2017. It is further submitted that issuance of permit doesn’t mean that the petitioner was given permission to lift the sand during the monsoon season violating the terms and conditions of Environment Clearance and Sand Ghat Settlement Agreement. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was the allottee of a sand ghat which was subsequently cancelled alleging that the petitioner made excavation of sand during monsoon season in the year 2016-17 and as such he has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the environmental clearance. 6. The petitioner was the allottee of a sand ghat which was subsequently cancelled alleging that the petitioner made excavation of sand during monsoon season in the year 2016-17 and as such he has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the environmental clearance. 6. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no any specific period of monsoon was mentioned in the environmental clearance; thus, the respondents were duty bound to issue a specific letter every year mentioning the exact period of monsoon during which the excavation/lifting was prohibited. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 18.05.2017, whereby the concerned allottees were directed not to lift the sand from the river bed for the period from 10.06.2017 to 15.10.2017. On the contrary the stand of the respondents is that the monsoon period of the State of Jharkhand has been mentioned in Appendix: Table-9 of Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guideline, 2016, thus, there was no need to issue any further letter in this regard. 7. The petitioner was granted environmental clearance by the SEIAA vide letter no.1493 dated 25.8.2015. Clause-11 of the said letter dated 25.8.2015 is with respect to the specific conditions of the said environmental clearance, which reads as under:- “11. The project proponent shall prepare the plan of mining in conformity with the mine lease conditions and the Rules prescribed in this regard clearly showing the no work zone in the mine lease i.e the distance from the bank of river to be left un-worked (Non mining area), during the monsoon season. Due consideration will be given to points raised in Supreme Court judgment and SEIAA guidelines.” 8. In Part-III, Clause 17 of the mining agreement, it has been provided that the excavation of sand would be made only in accordance with the approved mining plan and terms and conditions of environment clearance. Thus it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to do the mining activity in accordance with the terms and conditions of the environment clearance. The environmental clearance granted to the petitioner explicitly provides that no mining work should be done in the monsoon season. The period of monsoon season has not been provided either in the environment clearance or in the agreement. The environmental clearance granted to the petitioner explicitly provides that no mining work should be done in the monsoon season. The period of monsoon season has not been provided either in the environment clearance or in the agreement. However, the respondents have brought on record the extract of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India during the settlement period i.e. before the start of the relevant year 2016-17. Para 1(k) of the Guidelines, 2016, under the heading of management plan, reads as under:- “(k) The River Bed mining should only be allowed during the dry season. No River bed mining should be permitted during rainy season (see Appendix Table 9).” 9. Further, Appendix: Table-9 provides the period of rainy season in various states, wherein it has been specified that the normal date of onset of SW-monsoon in Jharkhand is 10th June and withdrawal of SW-Monsoon is 15th October. 10. Now, the question is as to whether it is obligatory upon the respondent authority to issue specific letter to the allottees intimating them about the period of monsoon season every year. I am of the view that since the period of monsoon season has already been provided in the Guideline, 2016 (Appendix: Table-9) no any notice is required to be given to the allottees, informing them about the period of monsoon season every year unless the district authorities require any change in the period provided in the Guideline, 2016. The petitioner has failed to show before this court any such stipulation either in the environment clearance or in the contract letter that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to issue letter every year specifying the period of monsoon season. Mere fact that in some of the districts, letters were issued by the Deputy Commissioners in this regard, does not change the position. The letter dated 18.05.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the letter dated 28.06.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on perusal of the letter dated 18.05.2017 it appears that the period of monsoon season is the same as provided in the Guidelines, 2016. Further, in the letter dated 28.06.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar there is slight difference in the period of monsoon season. Further, in the letter dated 28.06.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar there is slight difference in the period of monsoon season. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that under confusion, he has made excavation of sand for few days in the monsoon season, rather, admittedly, the excavation was done by the petitioner throughout the year. 11. The next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the monsoon season in the year 2016-17 observed complete dry spell and as such the petitioner was not required to stop the mining activities. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was explicitly provided in the environment clearance that no mining activity will be done in monsoon season. Thus even if it is assumed that the particular monsoon season was dry, the said fact would not help the case of the petitioner. 12. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the year 2016-17, the respondent authorities continued to issue the transit challans, therefore, it would-be presumed that they permitted the petitioner to excavate the sand even during the monsoon season. On this issue, I am of the view that there was indeed laches on the part of the respondent-authorities in issuing transit challans to the mining lessees even during monsoon season as the excavation of sand was in the knowledge of the respondent authorities. However, that will also not permit the petitioner to justify mining activity during monsoon season which was specially prohibited by reasons of the conditions of the environment clearance and the Guideline, 2016. 13. One should not be unmindful of the fact that sand is precious natural resource and if the excavation of sand is done, the same causes irreparable loss to the nature which is compensated by the nature itself in the rainy season and keeping in view the said natural phenomena, it was specifically spelt out in the environment clearance as well as in the Guidelines, 2016 that no mining activity will be done in the monsoon season. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has done mining activity throughout the year despite knowing the terms and conditions of the environmental clearance. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has done mining activity throughout the year despite knowing the terms and conditions of the environmental clearance. Merely due to the fact that the permits were issued to him by the respondent authorities, does not absolve the petitioner from the obligation under the contract. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order whereby the allotment of sand ghat in favour of the petitioner has been prematurely cancelled. 15. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the auction money in lieu of allotment of sand ghat has been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the agreement, however, the allotment has been prematurely cancelled and the proportionate auction money for the remaining period is still lying with the respondent authorities. So far this aspect is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to represent the respondent no.2, who shall deal with the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observation. 17. I.A. No.87 of 2018 also stands disposed of.