The single judge entertained no questions of law but dismissed the writ petition on maintainability grounds, dismissing the issue and directing the petitioner to approach the respondent officers by way of representation.
Petitioner directed to approach respondents 3 and 4 by making a representation supported by relevant documents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6079 of 2014
Lalith S. Rao S/o Late P. Nageshwar Rao, R/o 71, Rajendra Nagar PO & PS- Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, Distt.- East Singhbhum
..... Petitioner
Versus
…. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajendra Krishna, M.K. Sinha, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. V Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to AG
/09.01.2015 At the outset, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned G.P.-V
2
appearing for the respondents raises a preliminary objection, as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is further submitted that this writ petition involves serious disputed questions of fact and on that ground also, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the Circle Officer had written a letter to the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur and a perusal of the said order dated 02.05.2003 would disclose that the Circle Officer has indicated that the area for the purpose of lease is out of the Forest area and thus, apparently the letter dated 11.11.2014 written by the Forest Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is erroneous. It is
2
further submitted that the Forest Divisional Officer, Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to make a recommendation of the cancellation of the mining lease and thus, the letter dated 11.11.2014 is without jurisdiction.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. It is an admitted position that subsequent to letter dated 11.11.2014, the mining lease granted to the petitioner has not been cancelled however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made statement, on instruction, that on oral instruction of District Mining Officer, he has been asked to suspend the mining operations.
5. In view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent nos.3 and 4 by making a representation supported by relevant documents.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
R.K.
Lalith S. Rao
The State of Jharkhand
Mines Commissioner cum Mines Secretary
The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum
The District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum
The Assistant Mining Officer, East Singhbhum
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
