ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aditya Raman, learned A.C. to G.A.-III for the respondent nos.1 to 7 and Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.8. 2. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for an area of about 8.47 acres at Mouza Sigsiga Kalan, Khata Nos.7 and 36, Plot Nos. 856, 859, 863 and 1252 situated in Anchal Chiniya, District Garhwa for mining of stone. 3. Thereafter a report was called for from the Circle Officer, Chiniya, who after proper verification submitted a report to the District Mining Officer, Garhwa stating that the concerned raiyats have given their consent. 4. Thereafter, on 8 th March, 2019, the District Mining Officer, Garhwa informed the petitioner that through an order dated 6 th March, 2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, application of the petitioner dated 5 th December, 2018 was accepted and mining lease was granted and lease deed executed. 5. Subsequently, a letter dated 14 th September, 2019 was issued to the petitioner stating that there is some dispute being raised by Ganga Yadav, one of the raiyats, whose land is alleged to be within the mining area on the ground that he has not given consent to the petitioner. 6. The said Ganga Yadav is the respondent no.8 in the writ petition. 7. The petitioner filed a reply stating that after the grant of mining lease the objection is being raised by Ganga Yadav at the instance of petitioner’s business rivals and it was also stated that the petitioner had not undertaken any mining operation over the plot which belongs to Ganga Yadav. The petitioner also undertook to indemnify the State Government in accordance with Clause-4, Part-VII and Clause-2, Part-VIII of the Mining Lease till the objection is not resolved with the said Ganga Yadav. 8. Thereafter, on instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, the Circle Officer, Chiniya submitted his report on 27 th January, 2020 in which he came to the conclusion that leaving the disputed part, an area of 2.80 acres remains in which the raiyats have given their consent for mining. 9. 8. Thereafter, on instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, the Circle Officer, Chiniya submitted his report on 27 th January, 2020 in which he came to the conclusion that leaving the disputed part, an area of 2.80 acres remains in which the raiyats have given their consent for mining. 9. Thereafter an order dated 11 th February, 2020 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, suspending the lease granted to the petitioner and directing the lease holder to submit proposal in accordance with law to the District Mining Officer, Garhwa for disposal. 10. The petitioner, then gave his proposal on 29 th February, 2020 undertaking that she would not do any mining operation in the disputed area and she would confine herself to the area which is not disputed i.e., 2.80 acres and further undertaking was given that she would submit a revised mining plan in view of reduced mining area. 11. The petitioner then submitted a revised mining plan which was approved on 14 th March, 2020 by the Additional Director Geology, Hazaribag and the petitioner commenced mining operation and an account was also opened on the JIMMS portal. 12. Suddenly, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa issued a letter on 7 th July, 2023 alleging that an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Palamau, Medininagar and it was found that the petitioner had obtained mining lease by producing forged consent of raiyats, that there is no boundary pillar; and information board as well as mineral storage register were not kept; that the mining was not being done as per the mining plan; and, accordingly, notice under Rule 22(5) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 was issued to the petitioner, asking her to submit reply within seven days. 13. The petitioner submitted her reply on 13 th July, 2023 disputing the allegations and offering explanation thereto. 14. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa then allegedly passed an order on 31 st July, 2023 which was never communicated to the petitioner. 15. On 1 st August, 2023, the Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa informed the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa had passed an order on 31 st July, 2023, exercising powers given under Rules 22(5) and 27(2) and he had terminated the lease granted to the petitioner for the rest of the period, and asked the petitioner to return the mining lease area after reclaiming and rehabilitating the same. 16. 16. Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that premature termination of a mining lease can be done under Section 4 (A)(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 by the State Government only; there is no delegation of the said power by a notification in the official gazette to the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer; and in the absence of such a notification, the Deputy Commissioner cannot exercise the power of the State Government to prematurely terminate the mining lease of the petitioner invoking sub-Rule 5 of Rule 22 of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004. 18. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment dated 6 th February, 2025 in W.P(C) No.88 of 2024 rendered by this Court. 19. This legal position is not disputed by the counsel for the official respondents. 20. Also we may point out that grant of a mere seven days’ time for filing a reply is contrary to Rule 22(5) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 which mandates a period of 30 days to be given for filing of a reply to a show-cause notice. 21. Moreover, in the communication dated 1 st August, 2023 addressed by the Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa to the petitioner, it is simply stated that the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was found to be “not satisfactory”. No other reason is assigned. This also vitiates the impugned action taken by the respondents. 22. Though counsel for the respondent no.8 sought to contend that the land belonging to his client has also been included in the mining area by playing fraud, admittedly, the land of the respondent no.8 has been excluded which is evident from the Letter No.20 dated 27 th January, 2020 (Annexure-6) issued by the Circle Officer, Chiniya. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the said respondent by granting relief to the petitioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa had no jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the mining lease of the petitioner that too by not even communicating his order to the petitioner. 23. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. 24. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the said respondent by granting relief to the petitioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa had no jurisdiction to prematurely terminate the mining lease of the petitioner that too by not even communicating his order to the petitioner. 23. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. 24. The letter no.1067/M dated 1 st August, 2023 issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa and the order dated 31 st July, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa are both set aside. 25. However, liberty is granted to the State Government, in case, it is so advised to initiate steps for terminating the lease of the petitioner prematurely by issuing a proper show-cause notice, giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain her stand and then pass a reasoned order after providing a personal hearing and communicate the same to her.