IMPORTANT POINT
On the death of an applicant for grant of mining lease, challenging rejection of her application, all that survived to the legal heirs was to make an application afresh and not to be substituted in pending proceedings.

Headnote:Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957-Sections 11(2) and (3)-Notification dated 3.12.1977 for grant of mining lease-Appellant and one Dr. S were amongst nine applicants-State Government passed an order granting mining lease in favour of appellant-Order challenged by Dr. S -Writ petition filed challenging rejection of her application and to the grant in favour of appellant-During pendency of writ petition, Dr. S expired-Her legal representatives, private respondents prayed for substitution which was allowed-Grant in favour of appellant set aside-Appeal-Whether High Court committed error in hearing writ petition on merits after allowing substitution-(Yes)-On death of Dr. S , all that survived to legal heirs was to make an application afresh and have the same considered in accordance with law-Provisions of Rule 25A as introduced by 1991 Amendment held inapplicable.
       Held : Late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan in the writ petition filed before the High Court was merely canvassing and claiming consideration afresh of her application for the grant. There was no vested right accrued to her for the grant. The entitlement of late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan to the grant of mining lease was to be adjudicated upon on the basis of her own qualifications and entitlement. The claim of the legal heirs shall have to be adjudicated upon on the basis of their own qualifications and their own entitlement. Needless to say, on the death of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, all that survived to the legal heirs was to make an application afresh and have the same considered in accordance with law. (Para 12)
       There is an additional fact which cannot be overlooked. The grant in favour of the appellant was made in the year 1980 by way of a mining lease for twenty years. That period has expired during the pendency of these proceedings. In terms of the mining lease, the appellant is entitled to one renewal. The learned counsel for the parties are unable to state at the Bar, for want of instructions, whether the appellant has applied for any renewal and, if so, with what result. Be that as it may, the appellant has operated the mine for a period of about 23 years by this time and substantial investment must have been made by the appellant for operating the mine. It will be a traversity of justice to dislodge the appellant from the mine after a period of 23 years solely for the purpose of considering an application by a competition which application may or may not be allowed at the end. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if it is directed that any prayer for renewal of lease made hereinafter shall be treated as an application for a fresh grant and therein the private respondents or any other person shall be entitled to make an application for grant in his favour and to oppose the grant in favour of the appellant herein. (Para 13)

ORDER

Late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, whose heirs are impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein (collectively called hereafter as private respondents , for the sake of convenience) was holding a mining lease over an area of 163.4723 hectares in village Banarai for extraction of lime stone and dolomite. Late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan committed breach of terms and conditions of the mining lease in her favour consequent whereupon the State Government determined her lease and called for fresh applications vide a notification dated 3rd December, 1977. The termination of the mining lease held by late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan is now only a matter of past history inasmuch as that termination has achieved a finality and is not in dispute in the present proceedings.

2. Pursuant to the notification dated 3rd December, 1977, nine applications came to be submitted for the grant of mining lease in terms of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The appellant before us and late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan were also amongst the applicants. Having scrutinised all the applications, the Director of Mines, on 31st January, 1979, recommended the mining lease being granted in favour of the appellant. On 4th December, 1979, the State Government passed an order granting the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The terms and conditions proposed by the State Government were accepted by the appellant on 3rd January, 1980. On 11th January, 1980, the mining lease was executed and the formal grant order in favour of the appellant was issued by the State Government on 16th January, 1980. Late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan preferred a Revision to the Central Government against the grant in favour of the appellant. But the Revision was dismissed by the Central Government on 29th May, 1982. Some time in the year 1982, Dr. Sarojini Pradhan filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa laying challenge to the rejection of her application and to the grant in favour of the appellant. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 10th September, 1987, Dr. Sarojini Pradhan expired. Her legal representatives, the private respondents, prayed for substitution which prayer was allowed by the High Court, leaving it open for consideration at the time of final decision whether any right to sue survived to the private respondents or not. The matter was finally heard on 15th December, 1992 and disposed of by the High Court by its decision dated 23rd February, 1993. The writ petition filed by late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan and prosecuted by the private respondents was allowed, the grant in favour of the appellant was set aside and the State Government was directed to consider the applications afresh. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

3. The singular submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the right to sue did not survive to the private respondents and, therefore, the High Court has committed a serious error of law in hearing the writ petition on merits and then allowing the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel that consequent upon the death of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed as having bated as there was no occasion for allowing substitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the right to sue did survive and it is the status and entitlement of the parties by reference to the year 1978, that is the year in which several applications were filed before the State Government, that the claims of the parties should have been adjudicated upon as has been done by the High Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the decision of the High Court deserves to be set aside.

5. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the private respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2003 Supreme(SC) 870

IMPORTANT POINTOn the death of an applicant for grant of mining lease, challenging rejection of her application, all that survived to the legal heirs was to make an application afresh and not to be substituted in pending proceedings.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
On the death of an applicant for grant of mining lease, challenging rejection of her application, all that survived to the legal heirs was to make an application afresh and not to be substituted in pending proceedings.