Reddy Veeranna S/o Sanjeevappa vs Union of India, rep, by its Secretary to Government of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Kar) 613

High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. SABHAHIT
Reddy Veeranna S/o Sanjeevappa & Others
Versus
Union of India, rep, by its Secretary to Government of India & Others
Writ Appeal Nos.1095 of 2008 c/w. 1096 of 2008, 494 of 2008, 295 of 2008, 509 of 2008 (GM MM S) c/w. W.P.Nos.22564 of 2005 and 1097 of 2006 (GM MM S)
Decided on : 26-08-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Phanindra for M/s. Hegde and Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R2 & R3, Basavaraj Karreddy, GA, R1, Y. Hariprasad, CGSC, R4, M.M. Swamy, Advocate.

Headnote:MINES & MINERALS (REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - Section 11(2): [P.D. Dinakaran, C.J & V.G. Sabhahit, J] Grant of mining lease - Held, All applications were received after expiry of thirty days from date of publication of notification dated 15.3.2003 i.e., on 16.4.2003 onwards are deemed to have been received on same day for purpose of assigning priority under sub-section. Excluding applications received on second day and not on first day after expiry of thirty days from date of publication of notification is erroneous.
       MINES & MINERALS (REGULATION & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - Sections 26(3) & 13 & Minerals Concession Rules, 1960, Rule 26: [P.D. Dinakaran, C.J & V.G. Sabhahit, J] Grant of mining lease - Delegation of powers by State in favour of Director of mines & Geology to process application - Legality - Held, A harmonious construction of section 26(2) of the MMRD Act and Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, makes it clear that the power conferred on the State for refusal of application for grant and renew of mining lease, which is coupled with an obligation to give an opportunity of being heard & for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicate it to the applicant as contemplated under rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, has to be read into with Section 26(2) of the MMRD Act, which empowers the State govt. to delegate any power exercisable under the Act by the officer or the Authority subordinate to the State Government, as may be specified in the notification issued under Section 26(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in delegating such power to the director of mines & geology to process the application relating to such powers and matters exercisable by the State Government for two reasons, viz. - (i) in view of the settled position of law that provisions of the Rules are subject to the provisions of the Act; and (ii) Rules would sub-serve the Act and exercise of such power and discharge of such an obligation by the officer in whose favour the same are delegated are deemed to be exercised and discharged by the state Government.
        It is, therefore clear that the State has not denuded itself of the power to afford opportunity to the applicants and to take decision as to whether the mining lease should be granted or rejected .Even otherwise, it is well settled that the mere fact power has been delegated would not by itself mean that the State Government which has delegated power to the subordinate officer would denude itself of the power exercisable and cannot be said that State Government cannot exercise that power which has been delegated to an officer sub-ordinate to it.
        By holding that the state Government is not precluded from exercising power of affording opportunity under Rule 26(1) of the Rules by mere fact that the said power has also been delegated in favour of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology and having regard to the wordings of the notification & the facts of the case, it is clear that there is no division of responsibility of hearing and deciding by two persons and, there fore the proceeding of the State Government would not stand vitiated.
        The ’hearing’ as contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the above Rules, does not require the state Government alone to hear and decide without assistance of any other authority or subordinate officer, there is no division of responsibility of hearing and deciding while delegating the power of the state Government.

Judgment :-

The reference made in W.P.No.22564/2005 and W.P.No.1097/2006 and all these appeals are disposed of by this common order since they are inter-connected and to avoid repetition.

2. The learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 16.6.2008 in W.P.No.22564/2005 and W.P.No.1097/2006 has formulated the following questions and referred the same to the Division Bench:

“Whether the State Government is bereft of power to authorize an authority, or officer sub-ordinate to it to perform the function contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – notwithstanding the language of sub-Section(3) of Section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957?

Whether the ‘hearing’ contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the above Rules, require the State Government alone to hear and decide -without the assistance of any other authority or sub-ordinate officer and if there is a division of such responsibility, the proceedings stand vitiated?”

3.1. The learned Single Judge after referring the above said questions for determination by the larger Bench, proceeded to dispose of the writ petitions as devoid of merit. That being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.22564/2005 dated 16.6.2008, Writ Appeal No. 1095/2008 is filed by the petitioner.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.1097/2006 by order dated 16.6.2008 by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal No.1096/2008.

3.3 W.A.No.494/2008 is filed by respondent No.4 in W.P.No.27353/2004 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.3.2007 setting aside the grant of mining lease in favour of the appellant on the ground that the delegation of power to afford opportunity of hearing under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘MC Rules’) by the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology is void and illegal and the recommendation made in favour of the fourth respondent for grant of mining lease, is liable to be set aside.

3.4. Similarly, W.A.No.295/2008 is filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.27364/2005 aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, following the decision rendered in W.P.No.27353/2004, out of which W.A.No.494/2008 arises, wherein the learned Single Judge holding that delegation of power of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology is void has set aside the recommendation made in favour of fourth respondent in the writ petition-the appellant herein for grant of mining lease.

3.5. W.A.No.509/2008 is filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.12243/2004 whereunder the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 13.4.2007 following the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.No.27353/2004 held that the delegation of power of giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules is invalid and void; and has set aside the recommendation made in favour of the fourth respondent in the writ petition-appellant herein for grant of mining lease.

4. For the purpose of convenience and in order to consider the circumstances under which the order of reference has been made to the Larger Bench, it would be convenient to refer the facts in W.P.Nos.22564/2005 and 1097/2006.

5. W.P.No.22564/2005 was filed on 27.9.2005 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the recommendation dated 22.5.2005 made by the State of Karnataka for grant of mining lease in favour of the fourth respondent in the writ petition in respect of 224 hectares in Sy.No.283 of Vonnahalli, Bellary Taluk and District and also the order of approval of the Central Government on the said recommendation dated 22.5.2005 given by the first respondent-Union of India approving the recommendation of the second respondent-State and seeking for quashing of the said orders passed by the first and second respondents in the writ petition.

6. The peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document