Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 1
Rapped for passing orders terminating the contract for mining granted to the contractors without following the procedure, the state of Punjab has undertaken before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that it would follow the prescribed procedure in the future.
Procedure not being followed
We have observed that these types of orders, terminating the contract for mining as granted to the contractors, are being passed without following the procedure laid down under the Punjab Minor and Mineral Rules-2013 and Mines and Minerals Act-1957. High Court
The admonition and the undertaking before the Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Alok Jain came on a petition filed against the state and other respondents by M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt Ltd through senior counsel Gurminder Singh with advocate RPS Bara.
As the matter came up for hearing, the state counsel placed on record an order dated October 17 passed by the Ludhiana Executive Engineer /Drainage-cum- District Mining Officer, vide which the notice of termination of contract for a mining block was withdrawn.
Taking a note of the submission, the Bench asserted: "We have observed that these types of orders, terminating the contract for mining as granted to the contractors, are being passed without following the procedure as has been laid down under the Punjab Minor and Mineral Rules, 2013 and Mines and Minerals (Development amp; Regulation) Act, 1957."
The state counsel, in turn, assured the Bench that the aspect had already been conveyed to the authorities concerned. "It shall be seen that the procedure in accordance with law is followed in future," he further told the court.
The Bench has already made it clear in a related matter that termination of lease without the issuance of a second show-cause notice to a contractor could not be sustained as such an order would have been passed without following the procedure.
"What was mandated was, in case there has been a default on the part of the petitioner, a fresh show-cause notice for cancellation of the lease should have been issued, which in our considered view has not been done by the state. The mandate of the statute and the requirement of the rules having not been fulfilled, the action on the part of the respondents is unsustainable," the Bench had asserted in that case.
Senior counsel Gurminder Singh had in that case referred to Rule 68 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Rules, 2013, before contending that an opportunity of hearing and filing a representation was to be given to a contractor. The process was to be carried out after the receipt of reply to the initial notice issued by the director concerned in case he was of the opinion that the mining licence issued to the contractor was to be cancelled.
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/DOjNtnF
No comments:
Post a Comment