Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
VIVEK RUSIA, RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, JJ.
VANDANA RAJPOOT – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF M. P. and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 7477 of 2020
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Quarry Lease - Mining Department - M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 - The court interpreted Rule 18(2) regarding deemed rejection of applications and the finality of previous allotments, concluding that the respondent's claim was invalid due to the expiration of the lease period and lack of a pending application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders from the Mining Department regarding quarry lease applications, particularly focusing on the validity of a revision filed by a respondent who claimed a right to additional land despite a previous allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's application for additional land was not valid as the original application had been exhausted and the order granting a smaller lease had attained finality.
Issues: Whether the respondent had the right to file a revision against the order of allotment and if the previous allotment had any bearing on the current applications for quarry leases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's previous application had been fully considered and could not be treated as pending, thus the subsequent claims were invalid.
Result: The petition was allowed, restoring the order dated 8-3-2019 and imposing costs on the respondent.
ORDER :
(Vivek Rusia, J.) :
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 28-6-2019 (Annexure P/4) and 7-2-2020 (Annexure P/6), both passed by Under Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Facts of the case in short are as under :—
(ii) One Kapil Bhalla submitted an application for allotment of quarry lease of area 4 hectares of Survey No. 3624/1 for manufacturing of Gitti through crusher on 8-5-2007. Under Rule 18(2) of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”), the said application was treated as deemed rejected. In letter dt. 5-4-2013, the Collector informed Kapil Bhalla that his application is deemed to have been rejected by virtue of Rule 18(2) of the Rules of 1996. Kapil Bhalla preferred an appeal challenging the communication dated 5-4-2013 before the Director, Mining Department. The appeal was rejected on 26-12-2013 on the ground that Kapil Bhalla did not challenge the order of deemed rejection and letter dt. 5-4-2013 cannot be treated as an order. Thereafter, Kapil Bhalla approached the State Government by filing a revision and vide order dt. 23-7-2016 revision was allowed, order dt. 26-12-2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 3 to decide on the basis of merit.
(iii) Virendra Chaurasia and one other filed W. P. No. 6719/2017 challenging the validity of order dt. 23-7-2016. Vide order dt. 17-1-2018, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dt. 23-7-2016 by observing that the Collector: Gwalior would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for grant of quarry lease over the land admeasuring 2.50 hectare available over survey No. 3624/1.
(iv) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Collector forwarded as many as 10 applications received for allotment of various areas of land of survey No. 3624/1 for allotment of quarry lease. In this matter, respondent No. 4 submitted an objection that in the year 2005 he had applied for allotment of 2 hectares of land but due to non availability of land, only 0.750 hectares of land was allotted to him. Therefore, his application is liable to be treated as the first application for allotment of 2 hectares of the land for quarry lease. The aforesaid objection was turned down and vide order dt. 8-3-2019, petitioner Vandana Rajput has been allotted 1.286 hectares of land for quarry lease and 1.214 hectares of land was allotted to Smt. Santo Chaurasiya.
(v) Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-2019, respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before the State Government and vide order dated 28-6-2019, the State govt. allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8-3-2019 by remanding the matter back to the Collector to reconsider the applications mainly submitted by respondent No. 4. The petitioner preferred a review petition and the same has been dismissed vide order 7-2-2020. Hence, this present petition before this Court.
(vi) After notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed reply justifying the impugned order passed by the State Government and supported the case of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has also filed a reply in support of the impugned order.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner Shri Dudawat argued that respondent No. 4 has no right to file a revision against the order dated 8-3-2019 as he was not the applicant out of the ten applicants whose applications were to be considered by the Director for allotment of quarry lease. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the allotment of 0.75 hectare
The principle of finality in administrative decisions was upheld, emphasizing that previously settled applications cannot be reopened without a valid basis.
Point of law: The Director shall reject the application for P.L. or Q.L. in the event of any default on the part of applicant, in attending the inspection and survey or submission of valid mineral re....
Lease applications must be considered only after verifying that any dues owed by the applicant have been settled, emphasizing compliance with regulatory rules.
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
Point of Law : Court will not and cannot earn any sympathy or favourable order unless the statement is supported by the sincere, honest and diligent efforts made and manifested before the authority.
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
