in respect of “Khokha Sand Deposit Area”. It is further contended that the petitioner applied for grant of Environment Clearance Certificate on 23.1.2019 but the matter was kept pending and several requests were made by the petitioner to expedite grant of such Environment Clearance Certificate. He further contended that on 12.10.2019, the petitioner was informed that the letter of intent issued in his favour expired, as time barred, due to the fact that the petitioner could not deposit the Environment Clearance Certificate. He further submitted that the petitioner approached the Statutory Revisional Authority by filing Revision bearing Revision Case No. 23 of 2021, which was allowed on 18.12.2021 by the Mines Commissioner holding that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and he remand the matter to the Dy. Commissioner, Garhwa for settlement. Ultimately on 16.4.2022 the Environment Clearance Certificate was granted to the petitioner and lease deed was executed on 4.5.2022. He argued that once the lease deed has been executed, the same could not have been cancelled that too unilaterally. He further argued that Rule 9(1) ( M. ) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as amended by Rules 2020 gives power to the Mines Commissioner to set aside the order of deemed rejection and that power has been exercised by the Mines Commissioner. He also argued that the ground for cancellation of the lease was non-submission of the Environment Clearance Certificate within time, but when the petitioner had duly applied for the same, it was the respondents who were siting over the matter. When the Mines Commissioner has clearly given a finding that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner in obtaining such certificate, the impugned order could not have been passed. He further contended that the impugned order would suggest that if there was any laches and the queries, which were raised, was not attributable to the petitioner then in that scenario, the petitioner should not have been penalized by the respondents by way of rejecting the mining lease. The action of the respondents smacks malice, and they have taken advantage of their own wrong.
