1998 (11) TMI 689 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease determination of Avtar Singh.
2. Denial of natural justice and personal hearing to Avtar Singh.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.
4. Relief to Sahi Ram in light of the determination of Avtar Singh's lease.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the lease determination of Avtar Singh:
The lease granted to Avtar Singh for extraction of Silica was determined by the State Government on 27th April 1984 due to alleged breaches of lease conditions. The breaches included failure to install boundary pillars, maintain proper accounts, and ensure safety measures. Avtar Singh contested these claims, stating that he had complied with the lease conditions and that the boundary pillars were demolished by local villagers but had been repaired. The State Government did not accept his explanation and forfeited the security deposit. Avtar Singh's revision petition and subsequent Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court were dismissed.

2. Denial of natural justice and personal hearing to Avtar Singh:
The High Court held that the lease determination was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Avtar Singh was not given a personal hearing to explain the grounds mentioned in the termination order. Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, under which the lease was determined, does not explicitly require a personal hearing. However, the Court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana v. Ram Krishan and Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, to conclude that an opportunity for a personal hearing was necessary. The Court emphasized that the stakes were high and facts were in controversy, necessitating a personal hearing.

3. Maintainability of the writ petition after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court:
The High Court rejected the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, which clarified that a non-speaking dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not constitute a bar to filing a writ petition. The Court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Daryao v. State of U.P., which held that dismissal in limine without a speaking order does not create a bar of res judicata.

4. Relief to Sahi Ram in light of the determination of Avtar Singh's lease:
Sahi Ram, who was granted the lease after the determination of Avtar Singh's lease, argued that he should not suffer due to the State's illegal action. He contended that he had made significant investments and his lease was valid until 2002. The High Court, however, noted that Sahi Ram's lease was granted and renewed during the pendency of the proceedings and was subject to the outcome of the litigation. The Court found no special equities in favor of Sahi Ram that would justify denying Avtar Singh the lease for the unexpired period.

Conclusion:
The appeals by Sahi Ram and the State of Haryana were dismissed. The High Court upheld the learned single Judge's decision, setting aside the determination of Avtar Singh's lease and directing the restoration of possession to him. The Court emphasized the necessity of granting a personal hearing and found no merit in the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court also rejected the plea for awarding damages instead of restoring the lease to Avtar Singh.