2018 (4) TMI 1859 - HC - Indian Laws

Premature 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Premature Termination of Lease Deed
2. Non-observance of Principles of Natural Justice
3. Requirement of Issuance of Show-Cause Notice
4. Consideration of Petitioner's Reply

Detailed Analysis:

1. Premature Termination of Lease Deed:
The petitioner challenged the decision communicated through memo No. 734 dated 27.4.2016, which prematurely terminated the lease deed for a stone quarry. The lease, originally granted for ten years from 21.2.2010 to 20.2.2020, was terminated on the grounds that the leased area fell within a protected forest as per a 1953 notification. The petitioner argued that prior statutory clearances, including those from the Forest Department, had been obtained, indicating the land was not classified as forest land.

2. Non-observance of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were not observed. Specifically, the order dated 26.4.2016, which canceled the lease, was neither communicated to the petitioner nor considered the petitioner's reply to the notice issued on 12.1.2016. The court emphasized that any decision adversely affecting a person's rights must follow principles of natural justice, including proper consideration of objections and replies.

3. Requirement of Issuance of Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner received a notice on 12.1.2016 informing them that the leased land fell under a notified forest. The petitioner appeared for a hearing, but no proceedings took place. Another notice on 5.3.2016 required the petitioner to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department within 20 days. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s reply to these notices was not considered before the lease was canceled, violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Consideration of Petitioner's Reply:
The court noted that the petitioner's detailed objection, challenging the applicability of the 1953 notification and other factual issues, was not considered by the authorities. The court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of reasoned decisions and the requirement to consider objections before making decisions that adversely affect rights. The court referenced judgments such as Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, which underscore the importance of recording reasons and adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh, reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The effect of the previous order dated 26.4.2016 and the impugned letter dated 27.4.2016 would be subject to the outcome of this new decision. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.