The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative remedy, such as preferring a revision before the Central Government, renders a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Prospecting Licence not maintainable.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to challenge the order dated 04.04.1997 (Annexure P-18) passed by the erstwhile unified State of M.P., rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of Prospecting Licence made on 26.06.1995 for an area of 175.000 hectares and application dated 16.08.1995 for an area of 2499.524 hectares at village Bhansi, Bailadilla reserved Forest deposit 1/1A.

2. Notice of this writ petition was issued on 22.2.2012. However, the writ petition is not yet admitted for hearing. In course of hearing, the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition cropped for consideration to which learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has replied that when principles of natural justice have been violated, existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has relied upon judgments reported in the matter of Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank and others (2009) 16 SCC 187; Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and others (2010) 1 SCC 126; M/s. Ajantha Industries and others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others (1976) 1 SCC 1001 and Sethi Auto Service Station and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others (2009) 1 SCC 180. According to him, the petitioner was not communicated with the impugned order as mandated U/s 12(1) of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (for short "MMDR Act"). Therefore, there being infringement of principles of natural justice, this writ petition is maintainable.

3. The present is not a case where the petitioner was not noticed before passing of the impugned order. In fact, by communication dated 18.07.1996 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was informed as to the reasons for which his application for obtaining Prospecting Licence deserves to be disallowed and he should submit his reply within 30 days and inform the Government in case he desires a personal hearing in the matter. However, the petitioner did not respond to any of the proposed grounds of rejection informed to him by the State Government vide Annexure P-6. Thus it is not a case where no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before rejecting his application for grant of Prospecting Licence.

4. In the matter of State of Goa and others Vs. M/s. A.H. Jaffar and Sons AIR 1995 SC 333, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Para 3 as under:

"3. The appeal has been argued at length. Shri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the judgment with industry and precision. But it does not appear necessary to decide whether the finding recorded by the High Court that the order of Commissioner being administrative in nature it could be reviewed by the State Government nor it is necessary to decide whether the Minister could exercise any power where the grant of lease is regulated by the Statute as in our opinion the remedy of revision having been provided by section 30 of the Act, the proper course for the respondent was to approach the Central Government and not the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent expressed apprehension that the period for limitation provided in Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 having expired, the revision might not be entertained. The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that the revision could not be presented for sufficient cause within time. Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy in High Court bona fide, it would be sufficient cause to condone the delay and we trust that the revision if preferred within four weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barred by time."

5. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of MMDR Act and relegating petitioner therein to avail the remedy of preferring a revision before the Central Government U/s 90 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein has an altern