Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.L.Joshi,Mahendra Bhushan
PADAM CHAND VINAY CHAND - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Civil Spl. Appeal 11 Of 1977
Decided On : 03/16/1979
MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - SECTION 11 - MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960 - RULE 26 - MINING LEASE - GRANT - PREFERENTIAL RIGHT - INCOMPLETE APPLICATION - DATE OF APPLICATION - REVISION - POWERS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - AVAILABILITY - SUBSTANTIAL INJURY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a registered partnership firm engaged in mining, applied for a mining lease for an area of 887.46 acres. Respondent No. 3 also applied for a mining lease for an area of 209 acres, a part of the area applied for by the petitioners. The State Government granted the mining lease to Respondent No. 3 and rejected the petitioners' application. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Central Government, which allowed the revision and remanded the case to the State Government with a direction to pass a reasoned order. The State Government reconsidered the matter and again rejected the petitioners' application, granting a mining lease to Respondent No. 3 for a non-conflicting area of about 209.05 acres. The petitioners again filed a revision petition before the Central Government, which set aside the State Government's order and directed that the area be divided between the petitioners and Respondent No. 3 in the ratio of 60% and 40% respectively. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioners' claim for a preferential right to obtain a mining lease under Section 11 of the Act could not be enforced through a writ petition, as there was no specific right to file a suit even if the preferential right was ignored by the competent authorities. The Court also held that the application of Respondent No. 3 was not incomplete and was rightly entertained by the State Government, and that even if it was incomplete, it was completed on the date it was presented, which was the same date as the petitioners' application. The Court further held that the Central Government had the power to grant a mining lease for a part of the area applied for, and that the petitioners had not suffered any substantial injury as a result of the order.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce a preferential right to obtain a mining lease under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957? 2. Whether the application of Respondent No. 3 was incomplete and, if so, whether it was completed on the date it was presented? 3. Whether the Central Government had the power to grant a mining lease for a part of the area applied for? 4. Whether the petitioners suffered any substantial injury as a result of the Central Government's order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition is not maintainable to enforce a preferential right to obtain a mining lease under Section 11 of the Act, as there is no specific right to file a suit even if the preferential right is ignored by the competent authorities. 2. The application of Respondent No. 3 was not incomplete, as it was accompanied by a demand draft for the mining dues and an income-tax clearance certificate. Even if it was incomplete, it was completed on the date it was presented, which was the same date as the petitioners' application. 3. The Central Government had the power to grant a mining lease for a part of the area applied for, under Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 4. The petitioners did not suffer any substantial injury as a result of the Central Government's order, as they were granted a mining lease for 60% of the area applied for.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition.
MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the S. B. Civil Writ No. 1451 of 1976 of the petitioners.
( 2 ) THE appellants are a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of mining. In the village Khawa Raoji, Tehsil Dausa, Dist. Jaipur, the petitioners have two mining leases each for an area of 106 acres and 450 acres respectively granted to the petitioners by the Rajasthan Government in the years 1970 and 1971. Close by to this area, there was an area supposed to be a soap stone bearing one, measuring 77. 7 hectares, which was previously granted under mining lease to one Shri Anand Singh Kachwaha, but as he did not execute the mining lease, the area was declared free and fresh applications were invited by notification dated Feb. 18, 1970 published in Rajasthan rajpatra dated Dec. 3, 1970. The petitioners submitted an application for mining lease on Jan. 4, 1971 for an area of 887. 46 acres or 359. 13 hectares, addressed to the Secretary, Govern-ment of Rajasthan, Mines and Industry department, Jaipur, Rajasthan, through the Mining Engineer, Government of rajasthan, Jaipur. Most of the portion of the applied area (887. 46 acres) was overlapping the existing area of the said two leases of the petitioners. Shri prakash Chandra Jain, respondent No. 3, also submitted an application on Jan. 4, 1971 for mining lease for an area of 209 acres, a part of the area of 887. 46 acres for which petitioners had applied, and which had become free for grant when Anandsingh Kachwaha did not execute a mining lease. The Government of Rajasthan under Order No. F. 32 (69)/khaniz/71, Jaipur, 27th Dec. , 1971 granted the mining lease for an area of 209 acres to Prakash Chandra Jain respondent No. 3. and the mining lease application of the petitioners was rejected vide Order No. F. 32 (69)/khaniz/ 71. Jaipur dated the 1st Jan. , 1971 on the ground that priority has been given to Prakash Chandra Jain and the area is now not free for allotment.
( 3 ) THE appellants preferred a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) before the Central Government. After calling for the comments and counter-comments of the parties, and after considering the record the Central Government vide Order dated Nov. 26, 1974 (Ex. 13 to the s. B. Writ Petition) allowed the revision application of the petitioners and the order granting mining lease of 209 acres to respondent No. 3 was cancelled and the case was remanded to the State Government with a direction that the State government may pass a reasoned order indicating how the matters referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act were taken into consideration by them.
( 4 ) THE State Government reconsidered the matter and made an order on 20th sept. , 1975 that Prakash Chandras standing is on a better footing and hence priority was fixed in his favour. In the order, reasons were given as to how prakash Chandra (respondent No. 3) was entitled to priority for the grant of mining lease. The application of the petitioners dated Jan. 4, 1971 for the grant of mining lease for an area of 887. 74 acres was again rejected by the Slate government. The respondent No. 3 was granted a lease for non-conflicting area of about 209. 05 acres.
( 5 ) THE appellants again preferred a revision against the order of grant of lease to the respondent No. 3 and the rejection of the application of the petitioners for the grant of lease, before the Central Government and the Central government vide its order dated June 19, 1976 while exercising its revi-sional powers, and all other enabling provisions in that behalf, set aside the orders of the State Government dated Sept. 20, 1975. It was held (1) that the application dated Jan. 4, 1971 of Prakash Chandr
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
