Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.K.Jha JJ.
S.Lal And Co.M/s.
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 969 of 1972 ;
Decided On : JULY 27, 1973
MINES AND MINERALS - REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 13 - RULES 4, 4-A, 54, 55, 58, 59 - WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATION - RESERVATION OF AREA FOR EXPLOITATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR - EXECUTIVE POWER OF STATE - SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION BY PARLIAMENT - REVISIONAL ORDER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - BINDING ON STATE GOVERNMENT - MANDAMUS TO COMPEL STATE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT LEASE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a limited company, applied for a mining lease over certain villages in Bihar after the State Government issued a notification under Rules 58 and 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, stating that the lands were available for grant of mining lease. The applications were not disposed of within the prescribed period, so the petitioner filed revision applications before the Central Government under Rule 54. The Central Government directed the State Government to grant a mining lease for apatite over an area of 106.38 acres in one of the villages. The State Government, however, refused to grant the lease, stating that it had reserved the area for exploration in the public sector.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government's executive power to reserve the area for exploitation in public sector was subject to legislation by Parliament, and that the revisional order passed by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Rules was binding on the State Government. Therefore, the State Government was not at liberty to disobey or ignore the order of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government could withdraw its notification issued under Rule 58 or Rule 59 of the Rules after the order of the Central Government contained in Annexure "3". 2. Whether the State Government had the power to reserve an area for exploitation in public sector, after the order of the Central Government contained in Annexure "3".
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the State Government's power to withdraw the notification issued under Rule 58 or Rule 59 of the Rules was subject to the revisional order passed by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Rules. Therefore, the State Government could not withdraw the notification after the Central Government had passed the revisional order. 2. The court held that the State Government's power to reserve an area for exploitation in public sector was subject to legislation by Parliament, and that the revisional order passed by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Rules was binding on the State Government. Therefore, the State Government could not reserve the area for exploitation in public sector after the Central Government had passed the revisional order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to grant a mining lease to the petitioner in respect of the apatite mine in village Kanyaluka, district Singhbhum, in respect of an area of 106.38 acres.
UNTWALIA, J.
1. The petitioner in this case is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office in Calcutta. It carries on business of mining and has various mining leases to exploit various minerals in the State of Bihar and other States. It holds a valid certificate of approval granted by the State of Bihar under Rules 4 and 4-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules) made under Sec.13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioners case is that in or about January 1968 the Government of Bihar issued a notification under Rules 58 and 59 of the Rules stating therein that the lands in villages Byanbil and Kanyaluka situated in the district of Singhbhum were available for grant of mining lease for phosphate with effect from 15th February, 1968. A copy of this notification is Annexure-1 to this writ application. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease over the said villages on 15-2-1968. Copies of the applications are Annexures-2 and 2-A. The applications were not disposed of within the period of one year, as prescribed under Rule 24 of the Rules. Therefore, deeming them to have been rejected, the petitioner-Company filed applications in revision before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Rules. Copies of the revision applications filed on 1-3-1969 are Annexures 2-B and 2-C. C. W. J. C. 1121 of 1969 was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 16-9-1969 for a direction to the Union of India (respondent No. 1) to dispose of the revision applications. The writ application was admitted on 18-9-1969. During its pendency the petitioner-Company received a communication from the Government of India dated 7-12-1970 (Annexure-3), whereby the Central Government, in exercise of their relevant powers under Rule 55, directed the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over an area of 106.38 acres in village Kanyaluka.
2. In paragraph 9 of the petition the statement was that the Company had been informed that the Central Government had recommended the grant of lease to the petitioner in respect of village Byanbil also. The area in that village for mining apatite was 187.38 acres. In spite of the revisional order of the Central Government contained in Annexure-3, the Government of Bihar has not granted mining lease to the petitioner even in respect of the land in village Kanyaluka. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Government of Bihar in the Department of Mining and Geology for immediate implementation of the order passed by the Central Government, and the copy of this application dated 9-5-1972 is Annexure-4. C. W. J. C. 1121 of 1969 proceeded to disposal in regard to other two villages with which we are not concerned in this writ application. But the grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the State Government should be directed to grant mining lease to the petitioner in respect of villages Kanyaluka and Byanbil. Realising the difficulty, however, in respect of the sufficiency of materials for village Byanbil, this application was confined to the prayer for village Kanyaluka only, and whatever has been stated in this writ application in relation to the grant of mining lease for village Byanbil has been withdrawn.
3. An application under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by one Dr. Satyanarain Sinha for being added as a party respondent. An order in that connection was passed on 9-1-1973 by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member. But when the hearing of this case was commenced on 23-7-1973 learned Counsel for Dr. Satyanarain Sinha did not press that application for adding him as a party. Accordingly, that petition was dismissed.
4. The present writ application was filed on 28-7-1972 and admitted on 12-9-1972. Notice of this application seems to have been served on the respondents long before 7-3-1973, when this case was inclu
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
