Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 509 (JHR)

Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
ORDER : 1. None appears on behalf of the parties. 2. As this matter is pending since 2005, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. The prayer made in this writ petition by the petitioner is for quashing of the order dated 03.12.2004 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision No. 21 of 2003 by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma passed on an application for renewal of mining lease of stone has been affirmed. 4. The factual aspects of the case reveals that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for stone over an area of 2 acres of land situated in Mouza Kharkhar in the district of Kodema for a period from 20.10.1987 to 19.10.1992. Subsequently, the lease was renewed for a further period of 10 years from 20.10.1992 to 19.10.2002. The petitioner was required to submit an application for renewal of the mining lease 90 days prior to the maturity of its term (in terms of Rule 22 (1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1972), but the application for renewal was made after the expiry of a statutory period and therefore, the prayer for renewal of the lease has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner which was subsequently affirmed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 03.12.2004 in Revision Case No. 21 of 2003. 5. The grounds which have been taken by the petitioner in the writ application is that on account of latches on the part of the office staff, the application for renewal was filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease period. A further ground has been taken that so far as the institution of the Certificate Case is concerned, that is with respect to another leasehold premises covering an area of 5 acres of land and not concerned with the subject-matter of the writ application. 6. The petitioner has also claimed that he was not aware about the quantum of royalty which was to be paid and he is ready to pay outstanding dues of royalty. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was carrying on a business of mining stone without regularly paying royalty and the dues were duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.04.2006. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was carrying on a business of mining stone without regularly paying royalty and the dues were duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.04.2006. It also appears that a certificate case was initiated for the recovery of dues arising out of royalty. 8. From the statements made by the respective parties in the affidavits, it appears to be an admitted fact that in terms of the statutory rules, the renewal of mining lease of stone was not made within the period of 90 days from the date of expiry of the lease period. It also appears that there has been a demand on the part of the petitioner in the writ petition itself that there are some dues with respect to royalty and the petitioner had shown his inclination to make payment of the said dues. The Mines Commissioner therefore, was correct in affirming the order of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma rejecting the petition for renewal of mining lease of stone in terms of Rule 22 (1) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1972. 9. In such circumstances, therefore, no illegality has been caused by either the Deputy Commissioner or the Mines Commissioner in not renewing the mining lease of the petitioner considering the fact that being a habitual defaulter as well as making an application for lease much after the statutory period has made the petitioner forfeit his right to claim renewal of mining lease as indicated above. 10. In view of what has been stated above, this writ application stands dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.