IN THE HIGH CORT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P(C) No. 533 of 2015 Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited, having its office at R.K. Mission, Kusum Vihar, Morabadi P.O. Morabadi P.S Bariyatu Town and District Ranchi(Jharkhand) through its Director, namely Satish Krishna Tandel, son of Krishna Tandel, resident of Flat No. E2 Mahanada Apartment, Kanke Road P.O Kanke Road P.S Gonda Dist Ranchi (Jharkhand) …......................... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan P.O and P.S.Dhurwa Dist Ranchi. 2.Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House P.O. and P.S Doranda Town and Dist Ranchi. 3.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi P.O G.P.O P.S Kotwali District Ranchi 4. District Mining Officer,Ranchi Administrative Building Kutchahari Road P.O G.P.O P.S Kotwali Town and District Ranchi …................. Respondents. --- CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT . For the Petitioner :- Mr..Indrajit Sinha Advocate Mr. Ajay Sah Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Ajit Kumar AAG Mr. Saket Upadhyay Advocate Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar Advocate --- 4./04.03.2015 The present writ application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interalia praying for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 27.1.2015(Annexure-
7) issued by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi, Respondent no.3 whereby settlement of Sand Ghats in respect of Mauja Birdidih Plot nos. 109 and 697 admeasuring 39.15 acres, over Kanchi River and Mauja Salsud, Plot Nos. 1207,1344 and 221 admeasuring 54.60 acres, over Radu River has been terminated and mining operations have been stopped with immediate effect.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received show cause notice issued by the respondent dated 23rd January, 2015 as to why the settlement of sand Ghats made in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled on account of non fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the show cause notice. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation within three days (72 hours).As 24.1.2015, 25.1.2015 and 26.1.2015 were public holidays, he could not file reply within stipulated time. However, immediately after said public holidays, he filed his reply on 27th January, 2015 at 11.20 a.m but on the same day i.e.27.1.2015 itself the order (Annexure-7) was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi inter alia stating that no reply has been filed in pursuance to the show cause notice issued on 23rd January, 2015. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner,Ranchi without considering the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner in responses to show cause. Thus the said order is in clear contravention of principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is submitted that reply filed by the petitioner on 27th January, 2015 was also not taken into consideration and therefore, the impugned order dated 27.1.2015 deserves to be set aside only on ground of non-observance of principle of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to Rule 11(5) and 11(6) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957, which provide as follows:- “11(5) The Regional Controller of the officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government, as the case may be, shall, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the mining plan or the modified mining plan, convey approval for disapproval to the applicant and in case of disapproval shall also convey the reasons for disapproving the said mining plan or the modified mining plan. 11(6) If no decision is conveyed within the period stipulated under sub-rule(5), the mining plan or the modified mining plan, as the case may be , shall be deemed to have been provisionally approved and such approval shall be subject to the final decision whenever communicated.”
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the order dated 19th January,2015 only for the first time through counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Prior to that there was no intimation about the said order, therefore, now the petitioner will have to take further appropriate steps for challenging the said order by way of filing appropriate proceeding.
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents-State submits that principle of natural justice has been observed by giving show cause on 23rd January, 2015. The order was passed on 27th January, 2015. In between 24th,25th and 26th January, 2015 the office of the Deputy Commissioner was kept open. Thus the petitioner was having ample opportunity to submit explanation in pursuance to the show cause notice, but the petitioner has failed to file his reply in pursuance to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, Deputy Commissioner has passed an appropriate order on 27th January, 2015. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner is not having any approved mining plan and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law as the petitioner is not legally eligible and entitled to continue with the mining activity.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the show cause notice was issued on 23rd January, 2015 and it was served on the same day. It also appears that thereafter, 24th,25th, and 26th, January, 2015 were the public holidays on account of Basant Panchami, Sunday and Republic Day and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 27th January, 2015 at 11.20a.m. Despite this fact, the order was passed by the the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in haste without taking into consideration the reply/explanation given by the petitioner on 27th January, 2015 inter alia stating that no reply has been filed in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 23rd January, 2015.Thus it became clear that reply filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi before passing the impugned order dated 27th January, 2015. Thus I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. The reply filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 23rd January, 2015 has not been considered at all. This amounts to clear violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The petitioner is not having any approved mining plan by the competent authority as it reflects from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The application seeking approval of mining plan has been rejected on 19.1.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application for mining has been rejected by the competent authority now the petitioner is even otherwise not in a position to carry out the mining operation for want of approved of mining plan and he will have to take further recourse available under law to challenge the said order.
6. In view of the above submission and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 27.1.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. The petitioner shall submit additional reply, if any, on/before 14th March ,2015 in pursuance to show cause notice dated 23.1.2015.Upon receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall take decision on reply within reasonable time and the decision that may be taken in pursuance to show cause notice shall be communicated to the petitioner within reasonable time. I.A.No. 1369 of 2015 Since the W.P(C) No. 533 of 2015 stands disposed of, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press this I.A. but submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to raise points which have been raised in the present petition before appropriate authority. Accordingly, this I.A. stands disposed of as not pressed with liberty to raise points available to the petitioner before appropriate authority. (P.P. BHATT, J.) SD