Judgment

SHARMA, J. :- The present appeals by the State of Haryana and the Haryana Minerals Limited are directed against the common judgment of the Delhi High Court disposing of 6 writ applications filed by different petitioners impleaded as respondent No. 1 herein.

2. Separate mining leases were executed on behalf of the State of Haryana with respect to silica sand and ordinary sand in favour of the writ petitioners for a period of 10 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The State of Haryana, in purported exercise of powers under Section 4A of the Act prematurely terminated the leases by its order dated lst October, 1986 which is quoted in the judgment of the High Court, stating that it was proper to do so as the Haryana Minerals Limited, respondent No. 4 (appellant No. 2 herein) a public sector undertaking had informed that it had fully equipped itself to undertake the mining operation and that necessary permission in terms of the section had been obtained from the Central Government to prematurely terminate the leases. Admittedly no prior notice to the writ petitioners or any opportunity to them to place their case was given.

3. The lessees contended before the High Court that essential conditions for exercise of the powers under Section 4A are not satisfied in the present cases and further, the impugned decision is violative of the principles of natural justice. It was also urged that so far as the lease in respect of ordinary sand which is a minor mineral under the Act is concerned, Section 4A being excluded by the provisions of Section 14 is not applicable. It was also averred that forcible possession of the mining areas was taken even before communicating the impugned order. The High Court agreed with these contentions and allowed the writ petitions. The State of Haryana and the Haryana Minerals Limited, respondents Nos. 2 and 4, respectively, in the writ cases were allowed special leave to appeal under Article 136. Hence these appeals.

4. Section 4A as it stood at the relevant time read as follows :

"4A. (1) Where the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government, is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development so to do, it may request the State Government to make a premature termination of a mining lease in respect of any mineral, other than minor mineral, and, on receipt of such request, the State Government shall make an order making a premature termination of such mining lease and granting a fresh mining lease in favour of such Government company or corporation owned or controlled by Government as it may think fit.

(2) Where the State Government after consultation with the Central Government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development so to do, it may, by an order, make premature termination of a mining lease in respect of any minor mineral and grant a fresh lease in respect of such mineral in favour of such Government company or corporation owned or controlled by Government as it may think fit."

5. Silica sand being a major mineral is governed by sub-section (1) of Section 4A and ordinary sand by sub-section (2). According to the appellant, full and necessary consultation between the two Governments i.e. the Central Government and the State Government was held and it was considered expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development to take the impugned decision. Reference in this regard was made by the learned counsel to the report of the Indian Bureau of Mines referred to in the letters of the Director, Department of Mines, Central Government to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, dated 20th April, 1985, 8th July, 1985 and 10th July, 1985 and the States letters dated 14th July, 1986, 17th September, 1986 and 29th September, 1986. It has been contended that since a d