Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 156
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANAKARAJ
State of T.N. and Another - Appellant
Versus
Tvl. Mineral and Minerals Product of India - Respondents
W.A. No. 45 of 1997 and C.M.P. No. 556 of 1997
Decided On : 05 February 1997
An applicant for a mining lease does not have a vested right to have the application disposed of in a particular way and it has to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of disposal.
Headnote:
MINING LEASE - REJECTION OF APPLICATION - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS - DELETION OF RULE 39 OF TAMIL NADU MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1959 - APPLICABILITY OF LAW LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. M/S. HIND STONE ETC. - NO VESTED RIGHT TO HAVE AN APPLICATION DISPOSED OF IN A PARTICULAR WAY - APPLICATION TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO RULES IN FORCE ON DATE OF DISPOSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a mining lease under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (the Rules). The application was rejected by the State Government on the grounds that it was not accompanied by the income-tax clearance certificate, the solvency certificate was not current, and the no mining due certificate was not enclosed. The petitioner challenged the rejection order in a writ petition, which was allowed by the single Judge. The State Government appealed against the single Judge's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application as the petitioner had not complied with the requirements of the Rules. The court also held that the direction of the Supreme Court to consider the application in accordance with law did not mean that the State Government was bound to grant the mining lease. The court further held that the deletion of Rule 39 of the Rules with effect from 27-6-1996 meant that the application could not be considered under that rule. The court also held that the petitioner did not have a vested right to have the application disposed of in a particular way and that it had to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of disposal.
Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 24-6-1996 passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner/respondent requires to be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone Etc., wherein it was held that no one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in any one, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed.
K. A. SWAMI, C.J.
The respondent is represented through senior counsel, Shri Somayaji. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, the writ appeal is heard for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10th October, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10585 of 1996.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner/respondent herein sought for quashing the orders dated 24-6-1996 passed by the State of Tamil Nadu in G.O.D. No. 177, Industries (E2) Department and further to direct the 1st respondent to consider the application dated 14-9-1995 for grant of quarrying lease afresh in respect of 25 acres situate in S. No. 104/2 in Ikondankothahalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District and pass such other orders as may be considered necessary.
4. The land in question is a Government poramboke wherein a stone quarry in question is situate. The State Government has rejected the application on the grounds that the application dated 14-9-1995 filed by the petitioner/respondent was not accompanied by the income-tax clearance certificate, that the solvency certificate produced was not current and that no mining due certificate
"was not enclosed with the application.
5. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, following an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. 15880 of 1989 dated 10-7-1990, in which it was held as follows :-
"For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. In as much as the petitioner is coming to this Court for the third time, I feel that no useful purpose will be served by directing the authorities to consider the matter again and pass orders. I, therefore, direct the 1st respondent to grant the lease in favour of the society subject to the usual conditions within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Learned single Judge has also referred to the two directions issued by the Supreme Court on 21-8-1995 and 6-5-1996 in respect of the earlier application filed by the very same petitioner for a mining lease relating to the land in question.
6. Having regard to the contentions urged by both sides, the following point arises for consideration :-
Whether the impugned order dated 24-6-1996 passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner/respondent requires to be interfered with.
7. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the point are no more in dispute. As already pointed out, the land in question is a Government poramboke. The petitioner/respondent made an application on 22-6-1982 for the first time for grant of mining lease in respect of the aforesaid land under Rule 8-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) before the Collector of the District. The said application was rejected on 22nd March, 1983. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner/respondent preferred an appeal before the State Government, which was dismissed on 4-8-1983. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application by the Collector of the District, the petitioner/respondent preferred W.P. No.2583 of 1984. The same was dismissed. An Appeal was preferred against the order dismissing the writ petition No. W.A. 1327 of 1988, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 22-10-1990. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. 1180 of 1991. The Supreme Court disposed of the S.L.P. by the order dated 21-8-1995 with the following directions :-
"The appellants are free to make an application for grant of a mining lease for Grey Granite in Dharmapuri District under the provisions of the added Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
When the application is so made, the State Government may dispose of the same in accordance with laws as early as possible. The applicants should make the application within four weeks from to-day. The challenge to the retrospectivity of the Notification issued under Rule 38 and all other contentions ra
