IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12865 of 2011 Madan Mohan Singh S/O Sri Kuber Singh R/O Vill.- Madurna, P.S.- Chainpur, Distt.- Kaimur Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner of Mines Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director of Mines, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, District Kaimur at Bhabhua, Bihar. 4. The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals, Rohtas, Bihar 5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabhua ----------- 5/ 24.11.2011 In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing Memo no.1263 dated 18.06.2011, whereby the Assistant Director, Mines, Kaimur (Bhabhua) directed to stop all Mines and Mineral operation going on in Madurna hills in view of order of Hon‟ble Minister, Mines and Minerals. 2. The petitioner was awarded mining lease of stone quarry in Madurana hills for five years with a bid of Rs.27,50,000/- to be paid in five equal yearly installment of Rs.5,50,000/- on or before 31st January. A lease agreement was also signed on 09.01.2010 as per terms of Bihar Minor Mineral Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called as „the Rules‟). 3. In a meeting of 20 point Development Programme held on 16.06.2011, some members made complaint of on going illegal mining in Madurana hills to the Hon‟ble Minister, Mines and Minerals. Acting on the complaint, the Hon‟ble Minister carried an inspection of Madurana hills on 17.06.2011 along with some of the officials of the District Administration. The Minister was satisfied that there were sufficient evidence suggestive of illegal mining. He directed the Additional 2 Collector, Kaimur, who was officiating as Collector, Kaimur to stop all illegal mining. In view of the direction of the Hon‟ble Minister, Mines and Minerals, the Collector, Kaimur vide his order, dated 18.06.2011 directed the Assistant Director, Mines to stop all kinds of mining activities in Madurana hills. 4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order stopping mining mainly on two grounds; Firstly- the Collector, Kaimur has passed the impugned order on the direction of the Hon‟ble Minister, without due application of his mind. Secondly; the impugned order is in teeth of the own direction of the Hon‟ble Minister, who sought closure of only illegal mining activities. The Collector, Kaimur on the other hand stopped all type of mining operations, both legal and illegal. The petitioner submits that he ought to have drawn a line, delineating legal mining activities from illegal ones. 5. The petitioner submits that he was granted quarry lease for five years over 1.53 acres of plot no.4084, Khata no.383 in Mauza Madurana, P.S. Chainpur, District- Bhabhua in 2003. The respondents did not renew the lease, which expired on 22.03.2008. Only on intervention by the Court in L.P.A. No.132 of 2009, the lease was renewed. Besides this, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against grant of lease in his favour on the ground that mining in the area would damage religious and historical monuments. It was also alleged that mining operations would also affect and delapidate mausoleum or „Rauza‟ of Bakhtiar Khan situated in nearby village, Malik Sarai. The 3 Division Bench dismissed the writ application holding that none of the allegations have any ground to stand. 6. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Mines, submits that a show-cause notice was earlier issued on 10.01.2011 under Rule 21 (5) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, in respect of allegations noted herein below. For instance, though the petitioner was granted lease for operation in stone quarry, he was found to be digging Pahari Soils as well. Further more, the petitioner did not demarcate the area of operations nor did he put any signboard, as per terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The petitioner had also entered into an agreement with M/s BSC – C & C “JV” for carrying mining operation in its lease areas, without taking appropriate permission in terms of Rule 23 (B) of the Rules. The petitioner, in aforesaid terms was noticed to show-cause, as to why his lease be not cancelled. 7. The petitioner in his supplementary affidavit has stated that he duly replied to the show-cause notice on 10.02.2011. The petitioner has denied indulging in mining of Pahari soil. He submits that the rate of stone mining is higher than that of clay mining and as such there was no reason for him to indulge in clay mining. The petitioner submits that signboards have been put and the demarcation lines have been duly drawn. Furthermore, the respondent authorities themselves laid the demarcations at the time of handing over the lease area. The petitioner submits that he has also annexed the photographs of 4 the lease area, which clearly show the existence of signboards and demarcation points. 8. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned A.A.G-2 appearing for the State, submits that there is no bar on the power of the respondents to stop / suspension of work, if it is found that the lessee are indulging in illegal mining. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Mines and the State. The authority which has right to grant mining lease in grave circumstances, on the basis of materials disclosed can temporarily suspend the mining operation. Nonetheless, the suspension of mining lease cannot be for an indefinite period. Soon thereafter the competent authority will have to conduct full fledged enquiry expeditiously with due opportunity of hearing to the affected party, as the latter has a statutory right to do mining operations pursuant to grant of lease. Even before passing an order of stopping the work, the competent authority must give some reasons for taking such action. 10. It is evident that the Collector, Kaimur has passed the impugned order at the behest of the Hon‟ble Minister, who had not directed to stop all kind of mining activities, but only those mining activities, which are illegal. The order of the Collector, Kaimur does not reflect any application of his own mind to the facts of the case. He does not even say that he is even prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had indulged in illegal mining. A competent authority can stop illegal mining 5 operations, if he is prima facie satisfied and has some reasons for taking such action. The impugned order stopping mining operations even does not refer to show-cause notice dated 10.01.2011 issued under Rule 21(5) of 1972, Rules, nor shows any consideration of the show cause reply. 11. The petitioner has rightly relied upon decisions reported in A.I.R. 1952 SC 16 (Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji and (1969) 1 SCC 308 (the Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors.), wherein the Apex Court observed that order of statutory authority must reflect due application of its mind and the order should not be passed at the behest of others. 12. The impugned order dated 18.06.2011, passed by Collector, Kaimur is thus not sustainable in law and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority for proceeding afresh. The application is disposed of in aforesaid term. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)