Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1859 - HC - Indian LawsPremature termination of lease deed - it is alleged that the lease area of the petitioner falls within the protected forest as per notification No. C/P.F.-10166/52-19R dated 2.1.1953 - petitioner has primarily challenged the action of the respondents including the impugned letter/order contained in memo No. 734 dated 27.4.2016 on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice - specific case of the petitioner is that purported decision taken by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.4.2016 for termination of its mining lease has not been communicated to it. HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned letter dated 27.4.2016, it appears that the respondent No. 4 while referring the order passed by the respondent No. 2 informed inter alia that the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect. The specific case of the petitioner is that purported decision taken by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.4.2016 for termination of its mining lease has not been communicated to it. In response to the said averment made in paragraph-16 of the writ petition, it has been stated in paragraph 20 of the second counter affidavit dated 11.11.2016 filed on behalf of the respondents that after cancellation of the lease in question, the respondent No. 4 communicated the same through letter contained in memo No. 734 dated 27.4.2016. The said statement cannot be read as if a copy of the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 26.4.2016 was in fact communicated to the petitioner. Even the impugned letter dated 27.4.2016 issued by the respondent No. 4 does not disclose any consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 12.1.2016 issued by the said respondent - It is well settled that if any decision is taken by any administration/quasi-judicial authority against a person adversely affecting his/her rights, the observance of principles of natural justice is not mere a formality. The objection/reply submitted by the person concerned in pursuance of the notice issued by the authorities is to be properly considered/appreciated so as to reach a logical conclusion in the decision making process. The impugned letter dated 27.4.2016 only discloses that since the leased land, falls under the notified forest, the mining lease of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.4.2016. The reply of the petitioner submitted pursuant to the notice dated 12.1.2016 (Annexure-4/1. to the writ petition) discloses that the petitioner elaborately contested against the applicability of the notification dated 2.1.1953 issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 over the leased land in addition to taking other factual plea. The Non-consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authorities is violative of" well settled principles of natural justice. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order in this regard after affording due opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner, preferably within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
|