Dariyav Kanwar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—The applicants-Karna Ram and others have preferred an application seeking leave to implead them as party respondents in the matter. The impleadment is sought on the ground that the applicants are khatedar of the part of the land covered by Mining Lease in question, however, before granting the Mining Lease, their consent was not taken and thus, they stand deprived from right to cultivate their land.

It is to be noticed that the present writ petition relates to the cancellation of the Mining Lease granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997 and the dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of the Mining Lease and therefore, the question of enlarging the scope of the writ petition so as to determine the rights of the applicants, if any, over the part of the land covered by the Mining Lease, does not arise. The applicants have no right to inter meddle in the matter.

The application (IA No. 5750/14) is therefore, rejected.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.1.14 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, the Revisional Authority, under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), whereby the revision petition preferred against the order dated 17.12.12 passed by the State Government, cancelling the Mining Lease of Mineral China Clay and Ball Clay, over an area of 93.24 hectares, in Village-Lithiriya, Tehsil-Jaitaran, District-Pali, granted in favour of the petitioner, stands dismissed.

On 27.3.14, this court while issuing notices to the respondents, passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner, in the following terms:

"In the meanwhile and until the next date, the mining area covered by the mining lease 7/94, which stands cancelled by the order dated 17.12.12 passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, shall not be allotted to anybody else." The order passed as aforesaid is in operation till this date.

The relevant facts are that Mining Lease of Mineral China Clay and Ball Clay over an area of 93.24 hectares, was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 30.4.96, for a period of 20 years. The Mining Lease deed was executed and duly registered on 1.5.97. According to the petitioner, she undertook mining operation over the area handed over to her at the time of sanction of the Mining Lease. However, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 9.3.11, issued by the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, informing violation of the conditions of the Mining Lease, in terms that the boundary pillars erected were not of prescribed size and further that the petitioner has undertaken mining within the distance of 50 meters from Nimbol-Digrana road. The petitioner was directed that she should complete the filling upto the distance of 50 meters from the Nimbol-Digrana road. Further, the petitioner was warned that if the deficiencies are not removed within the stipulated time, for the breach of the conditions of the Mining Lease, the proceedings shall be taken for imposing penalty as per Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short "the Rules of 1960"), for forfeiture of partial or full security amount or an action would be taken for cancelling the Mining Lease. The notice was responded by the petitioner after a lapse of more than one year and three months vide reply dated 12.6.12 stating that the pillars of the prescribed size have been erected and the work of filling upto the distance of 50 meters from the road is in progress. It is pertinent to note that the explanation of the Mining Engineer was sought by the Additional Director (Mines) for not taking the action against the petitioner for a period of one year and three months. The petitioner was also served with yet another notice dated 12.7.12 by the Superintending Engineer (Mining), reiterating the short comings/defects pointed out as above and the petitioner vide reply dated 29.9.12, reiterated the stand taken by way of earlier reply dated 12.6.12. The petitioner sought permission from the Director, Mine Protection, Ajmer Area, for permitting mining operation within 45 meters and upto 15 meters from the road. The permission applied for was granted by the Director, Mine Protection, Ajmer Region, vide communication dated 6.11.12 on the conditions specified. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the Mining Engineer to continue with the mining operation and for removal of the stay on issuance of Ravanna. However, the Director, Mines vide order dated 17.12.12 cancelled the Mining Lease granted in favour of the petitioner for non removal of the short comings/defects pointed out as also for breach of conditions of the Mining Lease.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Authority, under Section 30 of the Act, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision petition preferred in perfunctory manner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of revision. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petition has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority observing that short comings/defects pointed out were not removed and the petitioner failed to respond to the notice of the State Government in the stipulated time. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of permission being granted by the Director, Mines Protection, permitting the operation of mines on the conditions specified, has not been taken note of by the Revisional Authority. Learned counsel submitted that the non speaking order passed by the Revisional Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, Ms. Suman Porwal, learned Deputy Government appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the directions issued vide notice dated 9.3.11 for a period of about one and half years and therefore, the order passed by the Director, Mines, cancelling the Mining Lease was absolutely in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner knowing fully well that she is not entitled to undertake the mining operation within 50 meters from the road, undertook the mining within said area and did not remove the short comings/defects pointed out within the stipulated time and therefore, the Revisional Authority has committed no error in declining to interfere with the order passed by the Director, Mines, cancelling the Mining Lease, so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the petitioner had questioned the legality of order dated 17.12.12 by way of revision petition before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act on various grounds and a reply thereto was filed on behalf of the State Government. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Revisional Authority proceeded to consider the revision petition as if the application preferred by the petitioner for Mining Lease for Mineral China Clay and Ball Clay over an area specified, was rejected by the State Government whereas, the petitioner had challenged cancellation of the Mining Lease and not the refusal to grant the Mining Lease. Further, apparently, the revision petition has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority by merely recording its ipse dixit that the revisionist, the petitioner herein, has failed to rectify short comings/defects in response to the notice issued by the State Government in stipulated time. The various grounds raised by the petitioner questioning the legality of the order passed by the State Government have not been even been taken note of by the Revisional Authority. In the considered opinion of this court, where the grant of lease is regulated by a statute and the remedy of revision having been provided by Section 30 of the Act, the Revisional Authority is under an obligation to consider the submissions of the rival parties objectively. Suffice it to say that the non speaking order passed by the Revisional Authority without application of mind to the rival submissions of the parties and the material on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.1.14 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 2.3.15. The Revisional Authority shall decide the revision petition expeditiously, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, by passing a speaking order, after due consideration of the material on record and submissions to be made by the parties to the proceedings. The interim order dated 27.3.14 passed by this court as aforesaid, shall remain operative till the disposal of the revision petition by the Revisional Authority.

No order as to costs.