AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avneesh Jhingan, J
This petition is filed aggrieved of orders dated 01.09.2005 and 09.09.2010, dismissing the application for grant of mining lease and the revision, respectively.
The brief facts are that on 16.11.2004 the petitioner (now represented through his legal representatives) filed an application for mining rights in five hectare land in Village Sandala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. On non-removal of deficiencies pointed out in notice dated 07.12.2004 the application was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2005. On dismissal of revision on 09.09.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not received the notice dated 07.12.2004. Submission is that procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter ‘the Rules of 1960’) was not followed and no separate notice for granting opportunity of hearing was issued.
As per contra, the petitioner failed to comply with the notice dated 07.12.2004. The petitioner had received the notice and filed a representation seeking extension of time for removal of the deficiencies.
The stand taken by the petitioner that notice dated 07.12.2004 was not served, fell flat on the face as the application filed in pursuance to notice seeking extension of time for removal of deficiencies was produced by the respondent before the Revisional Authority.
On perusal of the notice dated 07.12.2004, it is forthcoming that the petitioner was not only granted opportunity to remove deficiencies but also an opportunity of hearing in case of non-removal of deficiencies or if the defects had already been removed.
The another aspect to be considered is even before the Revisional Authority or before this Court is not a stand of the petitioner that the deficiencies have even now been removed. In such circumstances, issue that a separate notice for grant of opportunity of hearing should have been issued has been rendered academic.
The factual stand that the notice was not served to the petitioner, was rightly rejected by the Revisional Authority. In absence of a case set-up that there was a compliance of notice or prejudice has been caused by giving a single notice providing an opportunity of hearing and for removing the deficiencies, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed.