http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SAHI RAM VERSUS AVTAR SINGH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/05/1999

BENCH: M Jagannadha Rao, A.P.Misra

JUDGMENT:

D E R M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     Leave  granted.   This appeal is directed against  the judgment  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  in  LPA  73  of  1992 confirming  the  judgment of the learned Single Judge  dated 24.11.1992  in Civil Writ Petition No.2566 of 1985  allowing the  writ petition.  The respondent filed the writ  petition questioning  the revisional order of the Central  Government dated  24.11.1984  passed  under section 30 of the  Mines  & Mineral  (Regulation  & Development) Act, 1957  (hereinafter called  the  ’Act’),  dismissing the revision  petition  and confirming  the order of the State of Haryana dated  27.4.84 terminating  the  mining lease granted to the  appellant  on 8.7.81.   The respondent was granted mining lease on  8.7.81 in  respect of major minerals.  This was underneatH while on the  surface,  minor  mineral lease was granted to  one  Mr. R.L.   Sharma.  A joint inspection of the leased area by the Director  of  Mines  is  said   to  have  revealed   various irregularities.   A  show  cause notice was  issued  to  the respondent  on  10.3.83  under  rule 27(5)  of  the  Mineral Concession  Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the ‘Rules’) and the  respondent  was directed to remedy the breaches  in  60 days.   The  respondent replied on 9.5.83.   The  Department filed  a  complaint which ended in a Conviction on  13.9.83. In  appeal,  the  respondent is said to have  merely  sought benefit  under the Probation of Offenders Act.  The same was granted  and appeal dismissed.  According to the  appellant, this  meant  that the respondent admitted  contravention  or breaches  alleged  against him.  By letter  dated  20.10.83, further  breaches were pointed out and the respondent  asked to  submit  a scheme with plans to rectify the defects.   On 18.1.84, the respondent was asked to form benches and employ workers  to  rectify defects pointed out in the  prohibitory order dated 20.10.83.  There was inspection on 21.2.1984.  A stop  work  order was passed on 23.2.84.  Then the  impugned order  of termination of lease was passed on 27.4.84 by  the State  of  Haryana under rule 27(5).  Possession is said  to have  been taken over by the State on 29.4.84.  Revision  to Central Government was dismissed on 24.11.1984.  The learned Single  Judge, while allowing the respondents’ writ petition on  24.11.1992  held  that  the State  of  Haryana  violated principles  of  natural justice.  But after holding so,  the learned Judge instead of directing that the matter should go back  to  the State of Haryana, which terminated the  lease, straightway  restored  the lease for the  remaining  period, without  directing  any  further inquiry to  be  made  after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

adequate  notice to respondent in conformity with principles of  natural  justice.  This judgment was confirmed  in  LPA. Now  this  Civil  Appeal is preferred by Sahi  Ram  who  was granted  lease  of  the major mineral on 31.10.1985  in  the interregnum  and his lease was being renewed.  He has  filed this  appeal  contending that the respondent was  guilty  of severe  breaches, that the order of the State Government and the  Central Government was right and that the orders of the learned   Single  Judge  and   Division  Bench  are   wrong. Elaborate  arguments were addressed before us by the learned senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  Sri  P.P.Rao  and  Sri M.S.Ganesh and for the respondent, by learned senior counsel Dr.   L.M.Singhvi and for the State of Haryana by Mr.   Prem Malhotra.   It  may be stated that the State of Haryana  had filed a special leave petition against the order of the High Court  but  withdrew  the same.  In the view  we  had  taken during  the course of the arguments, we told learned counsel for  the respondent that the learned Single Judge - once  he came  to  the conclusion that certain documents relating  to inspection  reports  were  not supplied or  that  the  facts relied  upon  by  the  State   Government  and  the  Central Government  in  their orders were not put to the  respondent seeking  his  explanation - the learned Single Judge  should have remitted the matter back instead of straightway setting aside  the termination of lease and restoring it back.   We, therefore, suggested that the matter should go back, instead of  to  the State Government, to the Central Government,  so that  time  could be saved.  We directed counsel to give  us the  points  which  could be referred back  to  the  Central Government.   Both sides have filed a long list of points to be  referred to the Central government.  We have  considered these  draft points suggested by both sides.  We are of  the view  that one of the important issues is as to whether  the breaches  discovered or irregularities committed were by the respondent  or Sri R.L.Sharma.  Initially noticed was  given for  rectification  of  defects  in  60  days.    Subsequent inspections  showed,  according to the department, that  the respondent  had not rectified the defects or breaches of the lease  terms or the rules applicable.  Therefore, after  the show  cause  notice, several inspections took place.  It  is not  clear from the record before us whether the  respondent or  his agent was present at these inspections.  It is  also necessary  to give to the respondent adequate notice of  the various  facts  taken  into account in the orders  of  State Government  cancelling  the  lease and in the order  of  the Central  Government revision.  We are of the view that it is necessary  that  a fresh show cause notice be issued by  the revisional   authority,  the  Central   Government  to   the respondent  giving the facts which are set out in the  order of cancellation of lease dated 27.4.84 and as set out in the order  of  the Central Government dated 24.11.84  and  which have been relied upon against the respondent.  The said show cause  notice  will  therefore be issued to  the  respondent within  six weeks from today by the Central Government.   In view of the fact that the appellant is in possession under a lease  granted on 31.10.85 and renewed thereafter till date, it  will be necessary for the Central Government to hear the appellant  Sahi  Ram  also after allowing him  to  file  his objections  to  the  reply of the respondent.   The  Central Government  will, therefore, give a show cause notice to the respondent  as  above stated (with a copy to the  appellant) setting out all the factual material relied upon against the respondent by the State of Haryana in his cancellation order dated  27.4.84  and the material relied upon by the  Central Government  in  its order dated 24.11.1984.  The show  cause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

notice  will be accompanied by copies of all such  documents as  were relied upon against the respondent by the State  of Haryana  and by the Central Government.  After receiving the explanation  of  the  respondent and the objections  of  the appellant  to the said explanation of the respondent and the rejoinder  of  the respondent, if any thereto,  the  Central Government  will give a hearing to the respondent and to the appellant,  and  will pass a reasoned order and  submit  the same  to  this  court within four months from  today,  after communicating  the same to the appellant and the  respondent and the State of Haryana.  The Central Government shall also decide   whether  the  breaches   and  irregularities   were committed  by  the respondent or by Sri R.L.   Sharma.   The aggrieved  parties can file objections thereto thereafter in this  Court.  List this matter on the 27th September,  1999. In the meantime the status quo as of today will continue.