V.G. Sabhahit, J.— These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since they involve common question of law and fact and are filed by the same petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner in both these writ petitions:

(i) that writ petitioner is a registered Private Limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of low ash metallurgical coke (met coke) at Porbandar and Mundra of Kutch District, Gujarat;

(ii) that in response to the notification dated 15.3.2003 application was filed by the petitioner in respect of the land described in Sl. No. 12 seeking for grant of mining lease over an area of 350 and 250 acres respectively;

(iii) that the application was filed for grant of mining lease contending that iron ore will be used for captive mining; and

(iv) that the power of affording opportunity under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') could not be delegated to the Officer subordinate to the Government as person who hears would not decide and priority ought to have been given to the application of the petitioner for recommending grant of mining lease.

3. The petition is resisted by the respondents.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and learned CGSC appearing for respondent No. 1, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 4.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition and submitted:

(i) that power of affording opportunity under Rule 26(1) of the Rules could not be delegated to the Officer subordinate to the State Government and State Government itself ought to have conferred opportunity and heard the writ petitioner;

(ii) that the application of the petitioner ought to have been given priority; and

(iii) that the order recommending grant of mining lease in Favour of the fifth respondent in both the writ petitions-M/s. JSW Steel Limited, is illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the recommendation made in favour of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.

7. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record:

8. 1. The material on record would clearly show that there is no merit, in the legal contention regarding the delegation of power raised by the writ petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Rule 26 of the MC Rules which deals with the power of delegation and the same reads thus:

26. Delegation of powers: 1) The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be. specified in the notification be exercisable also by:

a) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or

b) such State Government or such Officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the notification.

2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercisable also by such Officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.

3) Any rules made by the Central Government under this Act may confer powers and impose duties or authorise the conferring of powers and imposition of duties upon any State Government or any Officer or Authority subordinate thereto.

8.2. This Court in W.A. No. 1095/2008 and connected appeals, disposed of on 26.8,2009, had dealt with the Issues referred to by the learned single Judge regarding delegation of power. The issues read as follows:

(i) Whether the State Government is bereft of power to authorize an authority, or officer s