M/S Hari Om Minerals vs The Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1239 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                             W.P.(C) No. 1528 of 2018
       M/S Hari Om Minerals                                     .... .. ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
       The Union of India & Ors.                                .. ... ... Respondents
                                      ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG For the respondent -UOI : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI ......

07/ 29.03.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha has submitted that licence of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of order as contained in Letter No.Kha. NI. Code- 04/2006 contained in Memo No.1711/M, Ranchi, dated 13.08.2014, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand and the said order has been challenged before the Revisional Authority i.e. Joint Secretary and Revisionary Authority. The Revision Application filed vide Revision Application No.06(01)/2014-RC-I has been dismissed because of non-appearance of the revisionist on 30.01.2018 in Final Order No.30 of 2018, as such, petitioner is aggrieved because of dismissal of the order passed by the Joint Secretary & Revisional Authority. The petitioner may be allowed to place his case before the Revisional Authority who may pass order in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG has submitted that licence has been cancelled on merits, but he has statutory provision of revision and his revision has been dismissed because of non- appearance, as such, this Court may pass necessary order.

Learned counsel for the respondent- UOI, Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI has submitted that this Court may pass necessary order as revisional authority has dismissed the revision application on the ground of non-appearance of the revisionist.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. However, petitioner is at liberty to press the revision application as the revisional authority has passed the order on non-appearance of the parties and statutory authority has to pass order on merits, in view of the judgment held by

Apex Court in the case of Tutupalli Ramalinga Sastri vs. Sri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhaswami Varu, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 425 : ARI 1983 SC 257 as, such, the revisional authority cannot dismiss the revision application because of non-appearance.

Further, the Revisional Authority is directed to hear the application within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the same along with this order before the revisional authority after giving an opportunity of hearing.

However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner does not co-operate in the and proceeding, the revisional authority has every right to pass order on merits.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.