SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 496

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GORELAL DUBEY
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided on, December 4, 1975

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, A.K.Sanghi, Balakrishnan, C.K.RAINA PARKHI, C.L.SANGHVI, GIRISH CHANDRA, H.S.PARIHAR, K.J.JOHN, RAM PANJWANI, S.P.NAIR, V.M.TARKUNDE

Headnote:(1) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957S. 3 (e) - classification of limestone - limestone when 'minor mineral' or 'major mineral' - grant of lease should be made on the basis of the quality of the limestone in a particular area.

       Limestone used for lime burning was a minor mineral under the 1958 notification irrespective of the process of burning or quality of the lime produced. After the 1961 notification only that type of limestone would be a "minor mineral" which is capable of being used for burning in kilns for producing that quality of lime which can ordinarily and generally be used as a building material. The lessre's responsibility ceases when the limestone quarried by him is used for burning the kilns producing the building material quality of lime, it would be beyond his control to see that the lime so produced was actually used as a building material. But then by and large the question of grant of a lease for quarrying or mining the limestone will have to be decided by the State Government on the basis of the quality of the limestone in a particular area. 1975 JLJ 206 (SC) referred to. [Para 10]

       (2) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 - S. 3 (e) - two applications one for 'minor mineral' and other for 'major mineral' proper course to be adopted.

       When there are two applications for lease of limestone quarrying one as a minor mineral, and the other as a 'major mineral', the proper course in such a situation is to direct the State Government to consider both the applications, determine the question as to whether the quality of the limestone contained in the area in question is such that a lease to quarry it as a 'minor mineral' should be granted or is such, that a lease for mining it as a 'major mineral' should be granted and then it should proceed to grant the lease. [Para 11]

Judgment-

UNTWALIA

( 1 ) THESE two appeals by special leave have been heard together as they originate from a common dispute between the parties. They are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

( 2 ) TO provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the control of the Union of India. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Central Act 67 of 1957 - hereinafter referred to as the Act, was passed. In Section 3 of the Act clause (a) says; "minerals include all minerals except mineral oils". Clause (e) provides :

"minor minerals means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other minerals which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral;"

FOR the sake of convenience and to distinguish minor minerals from minerals, the minerals are generally called major minerals and will be described as such hereinafter in this judgment. Provisions of Sections 4 to 13 are applicable to the grant of any prospecting licence or a mining lease for a major mineral. In exercise of the power under Section 13, the Central Government made the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - hereinafter called the Central Rules. The State Government was authorised by Section 15 of the Act to make Rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences (now quarry leases) and mining leases in respect of minor minerals. The Government of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the said power made the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 - hereinafter called the State Rules. In clause (iii) of Rule 2 quarry lease was stated to mean a mining lease for minor minerals.

( 3 ) LIMESTONE is found in abundance in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Central Government issued a notification dated the 1/06/1958 in exercise of the powers conferred on them by clause (e) of Section 3 of the Act declaring "limestone used for lime burning" as a minor mineral. By a subsequent notification dated the 20/09/1961 the description of the limestone as a minor mineral was changed and only "limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material" was declared as a minor mineral. The power to grant a quarry lease for limestone as a minor mineral or a mining lease for limestone as a major mineral rested in the State Government - the former under the State Rules and the latter under the Central Rules. Applicants had to apply to the State Government in the respective forms prescribed in the two Rules.

( 4 ) GORELAL Dubey the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 785 of 1971 made an application on 7/05/1965 to the State Government for a quarry lease for "limestone for burning purpose" for a term of 10 years mentioning in paragraph 3 of the application "minor minerals" against the 6th column "minor minerals or minerals which the applicant intends to mine". The land in respect of which the application was made by the appellant measured 8. 36 acres and is situated in village Bistara, District Jabalpur. The firm, Ram Chander Badri Prasad Gaur, respondent No. 3 filed an application before the State Government on 2/06/1965 under the Central Rules in respect of the same area asking the Government to grant a mining lease to it for mining limestone as a major mineral. By their order dated 1/11/1965 a quarry lease was granted by the State Government to the appellant and a Lease Deed was executed on 10/11/1965 including a special clause 18a therein. Respondent No. 1 filed an application in revision before the Central Government. They allowed the revision by their order dated 14/12/1967 holding therein that in substance the application for a lease filed by the appellant was an application for major mineral and lease granted was also not for minor mineral, hence the grant of the lease to the appellant was not competent. The Central Government, therefore, directed the State Government to consider the application of respondent No. 3 for grant











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top