AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, learned G.P.-III appearing for the respondent-State, has sought leave of this Court to file a counter affidavit in terms of the order dated 09.10.2025.
Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the copy of the said counter affidavit has been received by him.
Counter affidavit is taken on record.
Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that a specific prayer has been made in this writ petition for a direction to the respondent(s), particularly respondent no. 2, to execute the mining lease deed in favor of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Pakur, in Rev. Case No. 20 of 2022.
It has been contended by him, with reference to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, which is based on letter no. 2093 dated 16.12.2024, appended as Annexure-M, issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Pakur, communicating that the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, has granted permission for the execution of the lease deed.
The petitioner has been directed to appear before the countersigning authority, i.e., the District Mining Officer, Pakur, along with the relevant documents within a week, so that further necessary action may be taken for the disposal of the mining lease.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, in terms of the letter dated 16.12.2024, although the petitioner approached the office of the District Mining Officer along with the relevant documents, the same has not been accepted. He has, therefore, submitted that the District Mining Officer, Pakur, may be directed to act upon the communication dated 16.12.2024, appended as Annexure-M, with a further direction to the Deputy Commissioner to abide by the permission said to have been granted for the disposal of the lease agreement, as stated in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit.
Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, learned G.P.-III appearing for the respondents-State, has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the District Mining Officer, Pakur, to act on the basis of the communication dated 16.12.2024, also directing the writ petitioner to approach the District Mining Officer along with the relevant documents referred to in the said communication within a specific period, preferably within a week. If the writ petitioner approaches the District Mining Officer within a week, the District Mining Officer shall take the necessary action as referred to in the communication dated 16.12.2024, appended as Annexure-M.
He has further submitted that if the relevant documents are submitted, the lease deed, as has been agreed to be executed by the Deputy Commissioner, will also be executed.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the submission made on behalf of the learned State counsel, based on the statement made in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, supported by Annexure-M, which is the communication contained in letter no. 2093 dated 16.12.2024, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the District Mining Officer, Pakur, within a week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, along with the relevant documents referred to in the communication dated 16.12.2024.
The follow-up action to be taken by the District Mining Officer, Pakur, shall be communicated by him to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, so that the Deputy Commissioner may proceed with the execution of the lease deed as per the law.
Accordingly, the instant writ petitioner is disposed of.