Dismissed

Smt Sushma Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2019WPC/673/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a widow challenging the rejection of her mining lease renewal application. The Mines Commissioner had rejected the revision due to the petitioner's failure to deposit pending statutory dues despite a direction to do so before the hearing. The court held that the order was not infirm as payment was made only after the rejection. The petition is dismisse

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Smt Sushma Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.673 of 2017

¶3

Smt. Sushma Devi, Wife of Late Kameshwar Sahu, Resident of VillageTurbul, P.O. and P.S.-Kamdara, District Gumla.

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Mines Commissioner at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla.

¶9

The Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla.

¶10

…… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rupesh Singh, GP-V Mr. Jagdish, AC to GP-V ----------------------------

¶13

08Dated 22nd July, 2019

¶14

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Gumla in revision case No.292/2012 by which the revision application has been rejected by the Mines Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make payment of government revenue in time.

¶15

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in the district of Gumla over Plot No.623 (Part) for crusher stone, the lease having been lost its force but prior to it, an application has been filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2005 for its renewal but no decision has been taken by the authority and after waiting for certain time, the petitioner has approached before this

¶16

¶17

Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1151 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.06.2012 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2005, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of order, if not already passed, in pursuance thereto, the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla has communicated vide letter No.813 dated 17.09.2012 about the decision taken by the licensing authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner who vide order dated 15.09.2012 has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the application was submitted in absence of the valid document as also the environmental clearance certificate even after the notice being issued in this regard, the relevant documents could not have been submitted.

¶18

The petitioner has approached before the Mines Commissioner under its revisional jurisdiction which was registered as Revision Case No.292 of 2012, the revisional authority has been apprised with the dues which was lying pending upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.63,442/- and therefore, he, by passing order on 21.07.2015 has directed the petitioner to clear all statutory dues before 19.08.2015 then only the matter shall be heard but the petitioner even after the aforesaid direction, has not paid the said defaulted amount which resulted into the rejection of the revision petition with a direction to initiate certificate proceeding against the petitioner for relaxation of the government revenue, against the aforesaid order passed by the Mines Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶19

Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in depositing the defaulted amount but it has been deposited, therefore, the rejection of the revision by the Mines Commissioner since is based upon the technical reason, hence, the matter of the petitioner requires consideration afresh as because, in the meanwhile, a new rule has come in supercession to the old one and as such the petitioner will have difficulty in getting license, if she will be directed to make application for getting the new license.

¶20

Counter has been filed by the State-respondent wherein inter alia the

¶21

¶22

plea has been taken that the Mines Commissioner after considering the fact that the petitioner has not deposited the defaulted amount which she was duty bound to deposit in terms of the conditions of the contract as contained in the lease deed license, therefore, the Mines Commissioner while rejecting the revision has committed no illegality.

¶23

Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned GP-V appearing for the State of Jharkhand by making reference of an order dated 31.07.2018 has submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order directing the Assistant Mining Officer to file specific affidavit stating therein whether the entire dues has been paid by the petitioner or not and if paid, the date when the same was paid, in pursuance thereto, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein the statement has been made that statutory dues has not been paid till the disposal of the application by the Mines Commissioner, Gumla rather it is after the delay of about 11 days as would appear from statement made at paragraph-7 to the aforesaid counter affidavit, therefore, according to him, when the fault lies upon the petitioner, he cannot insist upon questioning the order passed by the quasi judicial authority since if the petitioner is a licensee it is incumbent upon him to make payment of statutory dues which was to be paid by the petitioner in the sake of debt rent and the royalty.

¶24

Therefore, the order impugned suffers from no infirmity.

¶25

He further submits that if in the meanwhile new rule has come, no premium by way of relaxation is to be given to the petitioner since the rule which has lost its force by way of its repealment, will have no application for consideration of case of the petitioner.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that a mining license to run the business of crusher stone mine has been granted in favour of the late husband of the petitioner and subsequent to the death of her husband, the lease was transferred in favour of the present petitioner who happens to be the wife of the

¶27

¶28

original lessee.

¶29

The petitioner has made an application for renewal during the subsistence period of the lease by making an application on 13.12.2005 but the decision having not been taken fairly for a long period, a writ petition has been filed being W.P.(C) No.1151 of 2012, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 15.06.2012 has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to dispose of the petitioner's application within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶30

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has passed an order on 15.09.2012 rejecting the aforesaid application inter alia on the ground that the renewal application is not supported with the relevant documents for eg., the document pertaining to title, certificate pertaining to clearance certificate, the consent of Gram Sabha.

¶31

The environment clearance certificate issued by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India has also not been submitted in spite of the specific reminder made in this regard by the concerned authority which was communicated to the petitioner by way of communication made in this regard by the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla dated 17.09.2012 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been granted a week's time to remove the material available therein along with the instrument and deposit the entire amount within the stipulated period failing which the appropriate proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act will be initiated.

¶32

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by Mines Commisisnoer, Gumla under its revisional jurisdiction being Revision case No.292/2012 wherein the revisional authority has passed an order on 21.07.2015 directing the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.63,442/- which is lying due against the petitioner to deposit before 19.08.2015 then the matter shall be heard and the matter was posted on 19.08.2015.

¶33

The matter was heard on 06.10.2015 but the statutory

¶34

¶35

amount has not been deposited, therefore, the revisional authority has rejected the revision with a direction to initiate certificate proceeding.

¶36

The order dated 06.10.2015 passed in Revision Case No.292/2012 is under challenge.

¶37

This Court after appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case due to following reasons :

¶38

(i) admittedly, the petitioner has made an application on 13.12.2005 for renewal of the lease but she has waited fairly for a period of about 7 years in getting the application disposed of, for which, for its renewal i.e., the application dated 13.12.2005 since the petitioner has approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sometime in the year 2012 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 15.06.2012.

¶39

(ii) the Deputy Commissioner, acting in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court has passed an order on 15.09.2012 by which the application dated 13.12.2005 has been rejected inter alia on the ground that the said application was not supported with the relevant documents as also the environment clearance certificate which was to be issued by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India.

¶40

Admittedly the order date 15.09.2012 by which the claim of the petitioner for rejecting the application dated 13.12.2005 has not been challenged by the petitioner rather the petitioner has questioned the communication dated 17.09.2012 by filing revision before the revisional authority and it would appear from the said communication dated 17.09.2012 that the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla making reference of the order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which the application dated 13.12.2005 has been rejected, has directed the petitioner to remove all articles lying over

¶41

¶42

the land in question, failing which, the necessary action would be taken, meaning thereby, the communication dated 17.09.2012 is the consequence of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla dated 15.09.2012 and it is settled that if the foundation will not be assailed assailing its consequence, will not give any aid to the petitioner.

¶43

Otherwise also, if the petitioner has not questioned the order dated 15.09.2012 it will be said to be acceptance by the petitioner.

¶44

(iii) the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2012 by invoking the revisional jurisdiction by making an application before the Mines Commissioner at the time when she admittedly has not paid the amount of royalty and debt rent, therefore, the said amount being statutory dues lying upon the head of the petitioner, was statutorily to be paid by the petitioner before seeking renewal of a lease but having not done so the Mines Commissioner has also directed by issuing a direction to that effect upon the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount but she even in spite of aforesaid direction has not deposited the statutory amount which resulted into the rejection of the revision.

¶45

It transpires from the stand taken by the State in the supplementary counter affidavit which has been filed in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 31.07.2018 that the petitioner has only made payment of the statutory amount on 17.10.2015 while the Mines Commissioner has rejected the revision on 06.10.2015, meaning thereby, the petitioner has defaulted in making payment of the statutory amount.

¶46

It needs to refer herein that even if the lease deed there is reference of the requirement to be fulfilled by the applicant if made for renewal as would appear from Rule 23 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 wherein under sub-rule2(b) the renewal application is to be supported along with challan pertaining to deposit of the debt rent and royalty but admittedly, the petitioner has not paid at the time of consideration of her renewal application dated 13.12.2005.

¶47

¶48

In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the aforesaid reasons as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Mines Commissioner under its revisional jurisdiction cannot be said to suffer from infirmity, therefore, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the same, accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶49

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶50

Saurabh

Smt Sushma Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sushma Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nimai Mahato Vs Jagarnath Mahato

Dr Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi Vs Education

Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs Jayanti Kumari

Ram Lakhan Lohar Alias Ram Lakhan Lohra Vs Mantu Turi