The main legal point established in the judgment is that the preferential right under section 11 of the Mines and Minerals Act applies only when the area is not notified for grant of mining lease. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of the specific provisions and contingencies outlined in the Act for granting preferential rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of passing of an order on 9-3-2010 by the revisional authority of Central Government, dismissing the revision of the petitioner as also the order dated 11-9-2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh, granting mining lease for a period of 30 years to the respondent No. 3 at Village Badhretta, Mahva, Saipura, Bhilampur, Uchad, Shahadpur, Itora, and Hirawali of District Morena (hereinafter referred to as concerned area for short). It is contended that such a benefit of grant of mining lease to the respondent No. 3 is in contravention to the provisions of section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) as also the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) and as such, the same is bad in law. It is contended that though elaborate revision was filed, raising legal grounds, but the revisional authority has not considered all these legal grounds, settled principles of law and has dismissed the revision, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.

2. It is contended that the petitioner is a Company of B. K. Birla Group, which is a consortium of various companies, all of whom have been engaged in the cement processing, manufacturing and marketing activities across the country for the last 50 years. The petitioner Company itself has remained engaged in cement production and processing since its inception in the year 1978. The petitioner Company made an application for grant of prospecting licence on 8-12-2007 in respect of the land of concerned area. Another application was made by the petitioner for grant of mining lease over the said concerned area on 13-6-2008. There were other applicants also and all such applications were considered and hearing was held on 11-7-2008 by the respondent No. 1. The representative of the petitioner did appear on the date of hearing and submitted a written statement as also orally submitted before the Minister of the Department that the petitioner has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU for short) with the State Government for the purposes of establishing a cement plant at Kailaras, District Morena. Presently the annual turn over of cement production of the group company of petitioner was 13.65 million ton. The annual turn over was Rs. 7370 crore and the annual turn over of the petitioner Company for the year 2007-08 was Rs. 596 crore and dividend was Rs. 157.55. The Company has proposed to establish a cement plant with the annual production capacity of 1.6 million ton and a proposal is made for investment of Rs. 675-700 crore. The establishment of such a cement plant will provide directly or indirectly employment to about 2500 persons and the Government will get Rs. 174 crore per annum as royalty and other taxes. This fact was also brought to the notice that the petitioner Company has established a cement plant in the Rajasthan State, having annual production capacity of 1.6 million ton and in the said State a mining lease for lime stone was sanctioned on an area of 895 hectare. The group company of petitioner was running a cement plant at Maihar, District Satna, which has the annual production capacity of 3.80 million ton. In other States also, the group company of the petitioner has established the cement plant. Therefore, the preference should be given for grant of lease to the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that despite these facts and despite the fact that the petitioner has a preferential right, because of the fact that the application made by the petitioner was prior on date than the application submitted by other competitors yet, the application of the petitioner was not considered and the benefit has been extended to the respondent No. 3.