Krishna Pada Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Mines

Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No.153 of 2007 is under challenge.

The grievance of the petitioner as has been agitated in this writ petition is that the revision has been filed against the deemed refusal of the

application for grant of stone mining lease in Mouza Kantabani, Plot No.13(P) under Khata No.164 for an area of 5 acres within the jurisdiction of

District Singhbhum.

It is the case of the petitioner that while refusing the application within the meaning of the deemed refusal, the authority ought to have taken into

consideration that the application was in order and based upon the information contained in the relevant documents which was issued by the

competent authority.

Herein, in the instant case, the application which was filed long ago, could not have been considered for the reason that the reference of Khata

Number has wrongly been mentioned in the Environmental Clearance Certificate as “246†but while it was “164†in which error has been

committed by the authority, who has issued the certificate, if there is any error on the part of the concerned authority, who has committed error, for

that no attributably is to be casted upon the petitioner as because, if the Khata Number has wrongly been recorded in the environmental clearance

certificate then the application of the petitioner would have been considered but since it has wrongly been recorded in the environmental clearance

certificate, therefore, the application could not have been considered in the meanwhile, the new act has come in to effect, therefore, the application

deemed to have been refused and hence no fault lies on the part of the petitioner but he has been penalized, therefore, the writ petition.

Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned A.C. to A.G. has submitted by defending the refusal order which is impugned in this writ petition by taking aid of the

provision of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amended Rule, 2017 as per the provision of Section 9 (1)(d) any application prior to come into

effect, it would be deemed to be ineligible, therefore, it is admitted case of the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner, was prior to come

into effect of the Amended Act, 2017, therefore, the authority after taking into consideration the aforesaid statutory provision has taken decision by not

interfering with the deemed refusal by the competent authority, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the authority.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspects which is not in dispute that the

petitioner has made the application for grant of Stone Mining Lease over the land in question, the said application was submitted prior to come into

effect of law in existence.

The said application although suffers from some infirmity to the effect that in the Environmental Clearance Certificate the reference of Plot No.164

has been referred as 264 but actually the petitioner was claiming the mining lease over the Khata No.164, therefore, the said application could not

have been processed prior to come into effect of the Amended Act, 2017 but when the said application was pending, Amended Act, 2017 has been

come into effect by making an amendment in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004 inviting the notification dated 22.02.2017 whereby

and whereunder a provision has been made under Rule 9(1)(b) to the effect that all the pending applications for mining lease over the Government

land and tenancy land, shall become eligible automatically, LOI has been issued before the notification of this Rule.

Admittedly, herein the said provision of law existing in existence and any LOI has been issued before the notification of the said rule, therefore, the

revisional authority acting in pursuance to the provision of Rule 9(1)(d), 9(1)(e) has acted. This Court in order to appreciate the finding recorded, deem

it fit and proper to the provision reads as under :-

“9 (1) () 05.00

9 (1) () 05.00

, 2004 -11

( ) , 180

,

â€​

In view of the aforesaid statutory provision the application, if lying pending before enactment of the Amended Act, 2017 and if no LOI has been

issued, the said application will be deemed to have been refused, therefore, the Revisional Authority has acted in pursuance to the said provision and

hence it cannot be said that the Revisional Authority exceeded his jurisdiction or not acted in pursuance to the statutory provision. Since the revisional

authority has acted in terms of the aforesaid statutory provision while passing the revisional order, therefore, finding recorded therein, suffers from no

infirmity

In view thereof, this writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.