The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner. The court emphasized the need for adherence to the procedures prescribed under the Act and the Rules in the grant of mining leases.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for quashing of the proceedings of the State Government seeking approval of the Central Govt. , for grant of mining lease under Sec. 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMRD Act, 1957), on the application filed by 4th respondent pursuant to the notification bearing No. DMB/ml/dv/99-5575, dated 15-6-1999, as contrary to law and for other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE facts in these cases are as follows:- an area of 2560 acres in Hombalghatta, Gollarahalli and other villages were held under mining lease by Sri. P. K. Sarangapani Mudaliar. After the expiry of the lease, the State Government issued a notification dated 15-6-1999 published in the Official Gazette for regrant under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules" ). The petitioner, 4th respondent and 27 other persons filed applications for grant of mining lease. It is submitted that the petitioners learnt from the office of respondents 2 and 3 that the State Government has sought for approval of the Central Government under Sec. 5 of MMRD Act, for grant of lease in favour of 4th respondent without considering the other applications as contemplated under the Act and the Rules and have filed these writ petitions seeking for quashing of the proceedings. The petitioner (in WP/19291/01) also has submitted a detailed representation to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, requesting for suitable direction to the 2nd respondent for grant of mining lease in its favour by seeking approval from the Secretary (Mines), Central Govt. , under Sec. 5 of the Act, a copy of which is produced as Annexure D to the petition.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said representation, the Govt. has not taken any action and on the other hand has taken a decision to grant mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and has taken steps to move the Central Govt. , for approval as provided under Sec. 5 of the MMRD Act.

( 4 ) SRI. D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the decision of the State Government to grant mining lease in favour of respondent 4 is in total disregard of all provisions of the Act and the Rules.

( 5 ) THE State Government in its statement of objections has justified the selection of 4th respondent for grant of mining lease. Respondent 4 also in the statement of objections justified his selection by the State Govt. , for grant of mining lease. In addition to this the 4th respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions relying upon the decision in the case of m/s. Binani Zinc Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 Raj 238. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, grant of mining lease if any, by the State Government is only after approval by the Central Govt. as contemplated under Sec. 5 of the Act, and in the instant case since the Central Govt. is yet to accord its approval these petitions are premature and liable to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted that even assuming that the State Govt. has taken a decision to grant mining lease in favour of the 4th respondent and if the petitioners are aggrieved of the said decision, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to challenge the said decision by way of filing a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Rules.

( 6 ) BEFORE considering the case on merits with reference to the relevant provisions of law referred to above, I propose to consider the point raised by Sri. R. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned senior counsel regarding maintainability of the writ petitions.

( 7 ) SRI. R. N. Narasimha Murthy, appearing for the 4th respondent in all the petitions, submits that in the absence of any approval by the Central Govt. as provided under Sec. 5, of the Act, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as they are premature. It is further su