BALRAJ SURI v. UNION OF INDIA — 1982 DIGILAW 271 (DEL)

M. L. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Balraj Suri applied to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 22-2-1969 for grant of mining lease for extraction of major minerals. . Chemical Limestone, Gypsum and Delomite. In his application vide the several columns in Annexure X, he stated that the extent of the area he wanted, was 88 acres near Benog, Cloudesed in Mussoorie District Dehra Dun along with the road leading to Benog. The area was marked in the attached Survey of India Topographical map sheet No. 5 31 J-3. It was stated that it was not a forest area. The said area of 88 acres was also shown in red colour marked with points A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. Various distances were also given in the application. ( 2 ) ON the same date he made another application for grant of mining lease under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963, for the extraction of minor minerals, viz limestone and marble. He was granted minor mineral mining lease to the extent of 30 acres out of the aforesaid area for which a lease deed was executed on 29-5-1972. ( 3 ) BUT the application for major mining lease was neither refused nor granted, it was treated as a case of deemed refusal and tht petitioner filed a revision application on 10-3-1970 to the Government of India. It appears that while sending its comments, the State Government pointed out that the application has stated that the area was only as much as 88 acres but the actual area was 242. 35 acres. The Central Government made an order on 29-3-1972 under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR 1960) directing the State Government to" consider the application for grant of mining lease for chemical limestone, gypsum and dolomite over an area of 242. 35 acres in village Benog Coudend, District Dehra Dun and pass suitable orders on merits of the case within a period of four months". Further case of the petitioner is that the State Government instead of deciding his application, granted out of the same area mining leases to M/s Dyers Stone Lime Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3 on 10-6-1972 in an area measuring about 55 acres and of 30 acres to U. P. Minerals, respondent No. 4 on 23-10-1973. Further case of the petitioner is that the State Government instead of deciding his application, granted out of the same area mining leases to M/s Dyers Stone Lime Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3 on 10-6-1972 in an area measuring about 55 acres and of 30 acres to U. P. Minerals, respondent No. 4 on 23-10-1973. In spite of repeated requests by the petitioner, and grant of extension of time, the U. P. Government did not take any action and eventually on 16-9-1972 he filed another revision petition under Rule 54 of the MCR 1960. He was informed on 23-11-1972 by the Government of India that the revision was not maintamable as there was no specific order of the State Government. It was on 3-3-1976 that the State Government rejected his application on the ground that the proposed mining will affect (1) forest wealth, (2) stability of the formations, (3) the pumping station on Dhobighatnala, (4) the Kamptee falls, which wee a tourist attraction and (5) mining leases have already been granted to two other parties. ( 4 ) THE petitioner again filed a revision on 3-6-1976 which the Central Government rejected on 6-4-1977. The Central Government observed that the experience of the State Government with the leases already granted, had led them to the conclusion that in view of the adverse affects on natural beauty and forest wealth, further small concessions should not be granted over the area. The said leases were granted to other parties as early as 1972. Thereafter a survey was carried out and it came to the conclusion that mining was causing substantial damage to the mountain side. The Central Government was, however, of the view that it is for the State Government to decide having regard to all available considerations whether mining should be undertaken over the area. It did agree with the view that mining in moun- tanious regions does present risk of soil erosion and of damage to forest wealth and environment. Refuting the argument that mining leases were granted to applicants later in time, the Central Government, remarked that the mere fact that some leases were granted over that area would not be a justification for further leases to be granted. Refuting the argument that mining leases were granted to applicants later in time, the Central Government, remarked that the mere fact that some leases were granted over that area would not be a justification for further leases to be granted. The State Government was, therefore, within its right to reject the petitioner s application : It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed on 30-9-1977 with the prayers: (1) Mandamus to grant mining lease to the petitioner for extraction of limestone etc. , in respect of 242. 35 acres as shown in the plan; (2) Cancellation of the leases granted to respondents 3 and 4; (3) Not to grant any other mining lease or licence in the area applied for by the petitioner to any other person. ( 5 ) APPARENTLY, the petitioner had a good case to begin with in 1969. He also appears to have a genuine cause for complaint that several leases were granted in and around the same locality during the pendency of this petition, notably to one Pritam Singh in April, 1979 out of some area the petitioner had applied for. Section II of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 provides inter alia that the applicant whose application is received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the lease over an applicant whose application was received later. But the State Government to their counter affidavit contend that since the petition involved disputed questions of fact, it cannot even be sustained. This was so held in D. L. F Housing Construction (P) Ltd v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others AIR 1976 S. C. 380. They further object that the petitioner has alleged discrimination vis-a-vis the said Pritam Singh, but the same cannot be adjudicated upon without his being impleaded, he being a necessary party. They also contend that the map submitted by the petitioner, in fact, coveredan area of 242. 35 acres, while his petition made it appear that it was only 88 acres. The State Government had to correct relevant data and consider the pros and cons of granting the lease applied for and so they sought extension from the Central Government for a decision of the matter. With regard to respondent No. 3, they submitted that the area applied for by respondent No. 3, M/s. Dyers Stone Lime Co. The State Government had to correct relevant data and consider the pros and cons of granting the lease applied for and so they sought extension from the Central Government for a decision of the matter. With regard to respondent No. 3, they submitted that the area applied for by respondent No. 3, M/s. Dyers Stone Lime Co. Ltd. , was not only outside the area applied for by the petitioner but was on the other side of the hill. The mining operations of respondent No. 3 were not likely to disturb the Dhobighat Nala, Dhobi Ghat Pumping Station and the Kempti Falls. If mining operations were permitted to the petitioner, then debris would fall into the Nala which would get blocked and thus damage the Pumping Station. The water from this Nala is the main source of water supply to the city of Mussoorie and neighbouring villeges and this supply could not be allowed to be affected. ( 6 ) WITH regard to respondent No. 4, U. P. Minerals, it was submitted that the area applied for by them also fell on the other side of the hill and as such there was no difficulty in granting the mining lease for that area to them. A very small portion of about 5 acres fell in the total area applied for by the petitioner. The State of U. P. denied that the refusal of the lease to the petitioner violated Article 14 of the Constitution or section II of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. They also refuted the allegation of mala fides. They also asserted that the application of Pritam Singh was made on 25-2-1966 prior to that of the petitioner in as much as Pritam Singh had a preferential right over the petitioner. It was granted in 1971 and expired on 1-11-1981. Pritam Singh has since then handed over possession of the area to the State Government in May, 1982. The minor mining lease of the petitioner has also expired and he cannot be permitted to undertake any further operations even in respect of the minor mineral. The Government has appointed a high powered committee on 8-5-1981 to inspect the mining lease areas and areas connected with the sanction of mining leases in order to pinpoint the problems and make its recommendations. The Government has appointed a high powered committee on 8-5-1981 to inspect the mining lease areas and areas connected with the sanction of mining leases in order to pinpoint the problems and make its recommendations. The Committee is required to submit the recommendations on all renewal applications and all new applied areas under new applications. The decision of the State Government on such applications shall be taken up after recommendation of the committee. The convener has been directed to propose a list and indicate such areas which have to be considered. During the inspection if any fact comes before the Committee in respect of any specific area that it is necessary to stop mining operations, the committee shall give their report in this behalf with full justification. The State Government also pointed out that they have not only to sec the priority and the private interest of the petitioner but have also to oversee larger public interest. They have to examine the ecological and environmental aspects. The District Magistrate, Dehra Dun in his letter dated 28-12-1981 has said that mining in the disputed area has already done damage to Kempti Falls and Dhobi Ghat Nala. The Forest Department, the Tourism Department and the Nagar Palika have objected to any further mining operations in the hills around Mussoorie. Even the Prime Minister of India in a recent visit to the Mussoorie hills had discovered that the beauty of Mussoorie was being eroded due to grant of mining leases in the region. The hills have become naked and there is a danger to the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie highway. The Prime Minister was of the view that the beauty of the Mussoorie region should be protected. The residents of Dehra Dun District and Tehri Garhwal have also launched an agitation against the grant of mining leases in the hill areas as they undermine their rights of grazing and agriculture. Their water supply and means of communication are also affected. The local residents are also demanding that mining leases in the Ilills should not be granted. Their precise objection is that until the committee considers the matter in the aforesaid aspects, the petitioner cannot be granted a lease even if he had some sort of priority under Section II of the Act. ( 7 ) DYERS Stone Lime Co. The local residents are also demanding that mining leases in the Ilills should not be granted. Their precise objection is that until the committee considers the matter in the aforesaid aspects, the petitioner cannot be granted a lease even if he had some sort of priority under Section II of the Act. ( 7 ) DYERS Stone Lime Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3 in their counter affidavit Have stated that the mining lease granted to respondent No. 3 was outside the area applied for by the petitioner and as such there was no clash of interest between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Their area was on the other side of the hill and, therefore, their operations were not likely to cause any damage to the. Dhobi Ghat Nala and the Pumping Station. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in his counter affidavit have stated that as against his application for grant of mining lease for 88 acres, the petitioner is now trying to make out a case for an area covering 242. 35 acres. They were granted mining lease on 23-10-1973 when there was no application by the petitioner pending before the State Government, as his one had already stood disposed of in 1972. The area for which the petitioner had applied was along the road leading to Benog, whereas they had applied for the area situated much away from Cloud End and from the area applied for by the petitioner. The area for which the petitioner had applied was full of forest wealth, while the area granted to them was full of rocks and barren area. The lease area of the respondents was only 34. 85 acres and it is not the same in respect of which the petitioner had applied. Indeed at the time of aguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his grievance against the U. P. Minerals. ( 9 ) ALL the parties have filed the plan of all the areas concerned. The petitioner has also annexed a list of 25 parties which have been granted licences near the Mussoorie area. Out of this, we need not worry about the licences of minor- minerals which are given for a decade non-renewable. We should, therefore, concern ourselves only with the grant of major mineral licences. These are four. Out of them. Dyers Stone Lime Co. Out of this, we need not worry about the licences of minor- minerals which are given for a decade non-renewable. We should, therefore, concern ourselves only with the grant of major mineral licences. These are four. Out of them. Dyers Stone Lime Co. Ltd. , had been granted 54 acres in April 1980, but as already stated this is on the other side of the hill and is outside the area applied for. Pritam Singh was granted 70 acres in Hathi Paon area. He has already vacated. Rajgiri Minerals (P) Ltd. , and Doon Minerals were granted respectively 15 acres and 6 acres in Hathi Paon and Bhatta Areas. These grants have no doubt been made after the petition of the petitioner was declined. The petitioner, therefore, claims that his application be accepted and he will take all measures suggested or directed by the Government to protect against any possible damage to the Nala or the pumping station. ( 10 ) I have gone through the entire record and closely examined the maps furnished by the parties. It appears to me quiteclearly that the petitioner wanted lease of only 88 acres, though the maps supplied by him covered an extensive area of 242. 35 acres. It is, therefore, not proper for the petitioner to urge that he had in fact applied for or even purported to apply for an area of 242. 35 acres. His application, as closely examined in the beginning of this judgment, shows that what he was asking for was only 88 acres for extraction of major minerals. The State Government has pointed out this discrepancy in their comments to the Central Government, but while asking the State Government to reconsider the application of the petitioner the Central Government suggested that it should consider his application over an area of 242. 35 acres. This seems to be an error and at any rate the petitioner cannot be allowed to take any advantage to better his claim for an area longer than 88 acres. It is not correct to urge that the larger extent of the area stands concluded by the letter of the Central Government dated 29-3-1972. As a matter of fact, it was not possible for any government Central or State to enlarge the area for which the petitioner himself has made no application. It is not correct to urge that the larger extent of the area stands concluded by the letter of the Central Government dated 29-3-1972. As a matter of fact, it was not possible for any government Central or State to enlarge the area for which the petitioner himself has made no application. At best what can be said in favour of the petitioner is that he may be granted about 88 acres out of the total area of 242. 35 acres. The question of hostile discrimination is not at all involved because the petitioner was granted 30 acres of minor minerals. And there was not competitors except Pritam Singh who had certainly a preferential claim having made his application in the year 1966. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit of 8-9-1982 that Pritam Singh was granted an area of 70 acres in April, 1979 against his application dated 29-4-1978 but this averment does not seem to be correct because the petitioner himself has later on continued saying that the lease granted to Pritam Singh expired on 30-10-1981 and though he got six months extension, but he was not granted any renewal. He has gone in revision to the Central Government against refusal of renewal. Thus the charge of discrimination is not brought home against the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is clear from the affidavits filed on behalf of State Government that there is a considerable public and official opposition to mining operations in the area around the Mussoorie town, which has caused concern to the Prime Minister. The State Government, therefore, constituted a committee to go into the matter and see which applications should be allowed and which should be rejected. I gave option to the petitioner that this court would like to place the application of the petitioner also before the said committee so that it could be considered in proper perspective. , But the petitioner was not prepared for this. However, he can still make an application, which, I am sure, will be forwarded to the said committee for consideration before any action is taken by the State Government. ( 11 ) AS regards the minor mineral extraction, it was no at all the subject matter of this writ petition. , But the petitioner was not prepared for this. However, he can still make an application, which, I am sure, will be forwarded to the said committee for consideration before any action is taken by the State Government. ( 11 ) AS regards the minor mineral extraction, it was no at all the subject matter of this writ petition. It appears to have been introduced by way an order in C. M. 783182 made by the petitioner on 16-2-1982 for early hearing of the writ petition. Even in this petition too, no mention was made about the extraction of minor mineral. Rather, what the petitioner said was that if the relief is not granted immediately, the area for which he had applied will become non- exploitable and the petitioner shall suffer an irresparable loss which will not be compensated in any other terms. Another C. M. 1434/82 was made on 5-4-1982 in which it was prayed that the State of Uttar Pradesh be restrained from terminating the lease-hold rights of the petitioner in respect of the area of 30 acres he is already holding and from taking away these rights or dispossessing the petitoner from the said area or in any way causing any obstruction in the exploitation of minerals in the said area. The petitioner complained that subsequent to the rejection of his application during the last four and a half years his writ petition has been pending, the State Government have granted leases to about 35 persons in and around the area in dispute. Since the area of the mining of minor minerals and the major minerals was overlapping and if his operations will stop, he will suffer a loss in the event of success in his writ petition. May be so, but the request could not be acceded because firstly, the extraction of minor minerals has no connection whatsoever with this petition, secondly, the lease has already come to an end, thirdly, I am dismissing this writ petition and fourthly, there is no connection of the minor and major minerals even if the area be the same; the applicant may get one and may not get the other. Therefore, no order in respect of minor mineral can be made. It is between the petitioner and the State Government to negotiate the matter. Therefore, no order in respect of minor mineral can be made. It is between the petitioner and the State Government to negotiate the matter. At one stage the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh had offered that if the petitioner discontinued mining operations, he could remain inoccupation of the area until the State Government had examined its policy. But the petitioner did not agree perhaps because he thought it served no immediate purpose. I may add that minerals minor or otherwise are properties of the State Government and it is not a fundamental right of any person to extract any mineral from any place owned by the State. It is, because it lies in the general interest of the public. revenue and economic development and interest of the people engaged in mining business, that the law has stepped in to regulate to strikea balance between the interest of the State and the subjects. No person can claim that he has a right to have the lands leased out to him. The right of mining is a statutory right available under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the various rules framed, thereunder and hence amendable to judicial review and it is only in the administration of the statute and the rules that the State is precluded from making any discrimination or from ignoring the prior applicants in a manner mala fide against the prarision of section 11 of the Act. It must be noted that first in the queue is not the sole consideration and even the queue can be allowed to be jumped by the approval of the Central Government. In view of the facts alleged by the State Government, it is not possible for this court to say solely on the basis of the maps exhibited and shown howsoever detailed, whether the grant of permission to mining operations in the area will affect the water supply or the water falls or the forest wealth or the scenic beauty or the environment of the area. The Central Government has agreed with the grounds of refusal and it is not possible to disagree with them or class them as irrelevant, baseless or frivolous. These are matters for spot and expert ex ami nation in detail which this court is ill-suited to decide on the basis of affidavits and plans alone. The Central Government has agreed with the grounds of refusal and it is not possible to disagree with them or class them as irrelevant, baseless or frivolous. These are matters for spot and expert ex ami nation in detail which this court is ill-suited to decide on the basis of affidavits and plans alone. I do not find any foothold for reversing the impugned order and directing grant of lease to the petitioner after over a decade when the situation so considerably and evidently has altered. What seems appropriate to me today is that the matter may in respect of the area in dispute, be also considered by the Committee, and the State Government both of whom will give such consideration as proper and reasonable to the claim of the petitioner keeping in view that his mainstay of life and expertise is mining and that he was the first to apply for the filed in question. ( 12 ) WITH these observations the petition is hereby dismised. There shall be no order as to costs.