Pandey J.

1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari the following:

(i) An order of the Additional Collector Jabalpur, dated 3 July 1963 whereby the petitioner's application dated 7 1963 for the grant of a quarry lease in respect of the petitioner's own Bhumiswami land khasra no. 47/1 of village Mahgawan for extracting there form the minor mineral boulder gitti was rejected and the one made for the purpose by Devi Shanker (respondent 1) on 3 June 1963 was granted;

and

(ii) An order of the Additional Commissioner dated 10 April 1964 by which the petitioner's appeal against the earlier order was dismissed.

The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the Collector of Jabalpur to hear and dispose of, in accordance with Jaw, the applications made to him for the quarry base.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated in a few words. The petitioner, who held a quarry lease in respect of the area for the period 12 May 1958 to 12 May 1963, applied on 7 June 1963 for a regnant whereas the respondent 1 applied for the quarry lease on 1 June 1963. By the impugned order dated 3 July 1963, the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, preferred for the grant the respondent 1, who had applied earlier, as required by Rule 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules). As already indicated, the petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed on 10 April 1964.

3. The two orders dated 3 July 1963 and April 1964 are challenged before is as patently erroneous on the following grounds:

(1) The Additional Collector had no power to grant or reject the applications made for the quarry lease.

(2) There were special reasons for granting the quarry lease to the petitioner even though he had applied later than the other claimant and the case should have been submitted to the State Government for decision under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules because the powers exercisable there under ware not delegated.

4. Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition must be allowed on the first ground. By a notification dated 18 November 1961 issued under section 26 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), certain powers were delegated to the Commissioners and Collectors. That notification relied:

"In exercise of powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 26 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957), the State Government hereby directs that powers exercisable by it under Rules 5, 8 and 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Miner Mineral Rules, 1961, shall be exercisable also by officers specified in column (i) of the Schedule below and subject to conditions mentioned in column (ii) thereof.

Schedule

1. Commissioners: The powers shall be exercised in respect of all minor

minerals other than limestone and where the area of the

land exceeds 4 hectares but does not exceed 8 hectares.

2. Collectors: The powers shall be exercised in respect of all minor

minerals other than limestone and where the area of the

land does not exceed 4 hectares."

It is obvious that, by virtue of this notification itself, the Additional Collector cannot exercise any power under the Act or the Rules made there under. It is, however, urged that that the Additional" Collector could dispose of the two applications because under section 17(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, he was competent to exercise the powers of the Collector: A bare reading of that subsection, which is reproduced, is sufficient to refute this contention.

"17 (2) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order, notify or as the Collector of the district may, subject to any g