1. Grant of quarry leases for granites under Rule 3 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, in violation of the prohibition contained in Rule 3A. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 144
1996(1) Supreme 425
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, S.P. Bharucha and
K. Venkataswami, JJ.
M/s. Alankar Granites Industries & Ors.-Appellants
versus
P.G.R. Scindia, MLA & Ors.
-Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1683-1716 of 1996
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 1717-18,
1719-22, 1723-28, 1729-44, 1745-66, 1767-68, 1769-72, 1773-74, 1775-77, 1778-79, 1780-85, 1786-87 and
1788-89 of 1996)
Decided on 18-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The prohibition in Rule 3A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 did exist at the time of making the impugned grants under Rule 3 and since these grants were against the said prohibition, they were rightly held to be invalid and do not require any further consideration.
Headnote:Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969-Rules 3 and 3A-203 leases for quarrying granites in Govt. lands granted under Rule 3-Challenged in Writ Petition as contrary to prohibitions in Rule 3A-Allowed by High Court-Affirmed by D.B.-Appeal to Supreme Court by grantees-Relaxation power under Rule 66 whether can cure the evil?-No as it does not apply (Para 8)-Whether grants can be supported by High Court s order in earlier writ petitions? (No) (Para 9)-Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether grants under Rule 3 are valid despite Rule 3A prohibition, or if they can be sustained via Rule 66 relaxation or existing stay orders. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 )
3. Rule 66 requires a case-specific public interest finding prior to grant; stay orders in separate litigations do not suspend the operation of a rule for others. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. General government orders cannot substitute for case-specific satisfaction required for rule relaxation, and a rule remains operative unless struck down or suspended. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs; High Court judgment upholding the invalidity of the quarry leases affirmed. (Para 11 )
6. When can the government exercise power to relax rules for granting quarry leases under Rule 66?
The government must form an opinion that public interest requires the grant on specific terms other than those prescribed. This opinion must be formed after considering the facts and circumstances of each individual case prior to making the grant. (Para 7 )
7. Does a stay order granted to certain petitioners in a challenge to a rule's validity benefit other applicants?
No. A stay order requiring applications of specific petitioners to be disposed of without reference to a rule does not suspend the rule's operation generally or benefit other persons unless the rule is struck down or obliterated. (Para 9 )
8. Can a principal rule be used to grant leases if a specific restrictive rule prohibits such grants?
No. If a specific prohibition exists under a rule, grants made under a general power in violation of that prohibition are invalid, provided the restrictive rule has not been struck down or suspended. (Para 3 , 10 )
JUDGMENT
J.S. Verma, J.-The grant of in all 203 leases for quarrying granites in Government lands under Rule 3 of the KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1969 contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 3 A therein was challenged in the Karnataka High Court in writ petitions which were allowed by the learned single Judge and those grants were quashed. The writ appeals by the grantees of the mineral concession have also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, these appeals by special leave by the grantees.
2. All the 203 leases, out of which 61 were of renewal while the rest were fresh grants relate to quarrying of minerals in Government lands.
3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 Government of Karnataka made rules known as KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1969 (for short "the Rules"). Rule 3 provides for restriction on grant of quarry leases. Rule 3 A was introduced by amendment by a notification dated 5.9.1979 restricting grant of quarry leases in respect of Black Granites. Rule 3 A was amended by a notification dated 21.5.1980 extending the definition of `Black Granite . Then by a notification dated 23.6.1981, Rule 3 A was further amended by substituting the words `Black Granite or Pink Granite for the words `Black Granite . A further amendment was made in Rule 3 A by a notification dated 27.3.1982. Later by a notification dated 22.5.1990 the Government amended Rule 3 A by which the absolute restriction on the grant of lease of Government lands for quarrying granites in favour of private parties was relaxed in favour of certain categories of persons specified therein; and then by a notification dated 4.1.1991 a further amendment in Rule 3 A was made. A challenge to the validity of the amendment made in Rule 3 A in 1990 and 1991 was made in certain writ petitions wherein the High Court granted a stay in favour of the petitioners therein. At this stage the Government of Karnataka issued an order dated 18.6.1991 for grant of quarry leases for black, pink and multi-coloured granite under Rule 3 . It is under the said order dated 18.6.1991 that these 203 quarry leases were granted under Rule 3 . The challenge in the writ petitions which have been allowed leading to these appeals is to the 203 quarry leases so granted under Rule 3 .
4. It is appropriate at this stage to quote in extenso the aforesaid order dated 18.6.1991 which is as under :
"Proceeding of the Government of Karnataka
Sub : Granting of quarry leases for black, pink and multi-coloured granite under Rule 3 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1969.
Read : Government letters No. CI.51 MMN 91 dated 3.5.1991, 4.5.1991 and 9.5.1991.
Preamble :
With a view to encash the favourable international market trend in respect of ornamental granite and keeping in view the export potential on the request of Government of India in this behalf besides bringing in additional revenue to the State exchequer apart from checking the illegal and unscientific granite exploitation, the Government of Karnataka amended Rule 3A of the KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1969 providing for grant of Quarry Leases in favour of 100% Export-oriented industries, private enterpreneurs who have distinct industrial programme. In this behalf two notifications were issued as per No. CI. 304 MRC87 (P) dated 22.5.1990 and CI.214 MRC 90(P) dated 4.1.1991. The amendment so effected have been the subject matter of litigations as the validity of these amendments have been challenged before the Hon ble High Court and some of the writ petitioners obtained stay orders to operate these amendments.
By virtue of such stay orders the purpose behind which Rule 3A has been amended could not be achieved. While the Government have made efforts to get the stay vacated the plethora of writ petitions filed before the High Court in the way of ensuring scientific quarry activities in this State f
