Aparesh Kumar Singh
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo no. 534 dated 12.5.2004 issued
under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand as well as order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the
Revisional Authority i.e. Central Government Mining Tribunal by which the revision of the petitioner against the original order has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application on 9.1.1997 in terms of Rule 22(i) of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 for grant
of mining lease for the minerals Mica, Feldspar and Quartz over an area of 140 acres of land situated in Mouja Nagri of District Giridih. Petitioner,
thereafter, was asked to furnish certain documents vide memo dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-1) under the signature of Assistant Mining Officer,
Giridih. It is submitted that petitioner submitted all the documents at his disposal for consideration of his application. Further, it is stated that part of
the land was recorded as forest land in the record of revenue and Assistant Mining Officer was directed by the Additional Director, Mines to
procure no objection certificate from the forest authorities. Thereafter, Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih confirmed on the basis of the inquiry report
that area for which petitioner had applied for mining lease comes beyond the forest area (Annexure-3). Petitioner''s factory license was renewed
by the Labour Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 208 dated 6.3.2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that his application
remained pending for long and only in the year 2000 official correspondence was made directing the petitioner to appear before the year 2003
vide Annexure-4 series. Petitioner, thereafter, moved this Court in W.P.C. No. 6318 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated
23.12.2003 with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease in accordance
with law within a period of 3 months. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a representation but his application has been rejected vide letter no. 534
dated 12.5.2004, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application on the ground that petitioner had failed to submit the relevant documents in support
of his application. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred revision before Central Government Mining Tribunal u/s 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and
Rule 55 of Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960. The aforesaid revision application being 6/4 (2004)-R.C.I. has also been rejected vide order dated
19.3.2007 which is also impugned in the present writ application. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite submitting documents as
required under the Act and Rules, the Original authority as well as Revisional authority have rejected his application for grant of lease of the
aforesaid minerals for the area in question. Further, it is submitted that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner while passing the
order.
3. Respondent-State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit while the Union of India has also supported the order of the Revisional authority
contained at Annexure-8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application of the petitioner was considered in accordance with law
and it was found that the mining lease application of the petitioner under Rule 26(i) of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 did not fulfill the
requirement of furnishing necessary document such as (a) the forest clearance under the Forest Conversion Act, 1980 (b) Land schedule as per
rule 22(3)(g) (c) Original village map (d) Financial soundness certificate (e) C.O. Report (f) Area applied for is not a compact block u/s 6(1)C of
MMDR Act, 1957 (g) Geological report u/s 5(2) of MMDR Act, 1957 (h) Affidavit for Income Tax & consideration of the case of the interested
applicant. It is further submitted on the part of the respondent that the petitioner failed to submit these documents either before competent officer of
the State Government for consideration of his application for mining lease and also before the Central Government Mining Tribunal.
4. Respondent-State in their counter affidavit have also stated that one Sunil Kumar Gupta have been granted prospective license and application
of 4 other persons including the petitioner has been rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner was afforded enough opportunity from the
State Government right from the year 1997 and in 2004 his application was rejected since he failed to comply with the requirement of law by
furnishing necessary documents. Even before the Central Government Mining Tribunal petitioner was given adequate opportunity and he was
represented through his counsel. Learned Tribunal also took into account that State Government afforded the opportunity of hearing under Rule
26(1) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 and also issued notice to the petitioner to complete his application under rule 26(3) of M.C. Rules, 1960 which he
failed to do. The State Government also followed the laid down procedure for disposal of application of mining lease. Accordingly, the order of the
State Government was upheld and revision application was rejected.
5. This court on the previous dates allowed opportunity to the petitioner to show that he had submitted the relevant documents as were required
under the Rules and were demanded by the competent authority for consideration of his license. However, even from the perusal of the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it does not appear convincingly that petitioner have yet been able to show that the required
documents were furnished before the competent authority within stipulated time, although the mater was pending for 7 long years after he first
made application in the year 1997. It appears from the relevant pleadings and records that in the year 2004 prospective license has been
6. Therefore, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under which the instant application has been
preferred, the duty of this court is to see whether the inferior Tribunal has remained within the bounds of the jurisdiction or committed serious error
of jurisdiction or acted in excess of the jurisdiction.
7. In the facts and circumstances, which has been narrated herein above, I do not find that the original authority i.e. the State Government or the
Central Government Mining Tribunal had gone beyond the confines of their jurisdiction confers under MMDR Act, 1957 and Minerals
Concessions Rules, 1960 or committed any perversity so as to warrant interference from this court. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit
in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to him to apply afresh for
grant of such mining lease if the area in question has not been allotted to other person. Needless to say that if such liberty is available to him under
law, petitioner will be at liberty to make fresh application.