Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 926 (MP)

LODUPURA KAMGAR v. STATE

1996-10-30

S.S.JHA

body1996
S. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a co-operative society consisting of members of Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes. The society is registered under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The petitioner society applied for grant of lease for extracting flag-stone from lodupura area over survey Nos. 947,949,953,954,955, 956, 957, 958 and 959 ; the total area of 81. 833 hectares. The application of the petitioner was considered and allowed by the State Government vide order dated 25. 7. 1995, Annexure R-5. The society was granted lease in lieu of payment of royalty of Rs. 40,000/- per year for a period of three years in respect of survey Nos. 947,949, 953 to 959; the total area of 81. 833 hectares. The petitioner has deposited the amount on different dates as under: rs. 34,000/- as advance money, Rs. (sic) against the right to extract for a period of four months. The registration amount of agreement amounting Rs. 65,875/ -. The charges for the map of mine Rs. 27/- were also paid. ( 2 ) ONE Jandal Singh son of Kantan Singh (petition in writ petition No. 292/96)was having a lease of the aforesaid land. Jandal Singh has applied for renewal of lease on the ground that he has established polishing machine, therefore, he has right of extention of lease for a period of two years. His application was also considered and mining Officer has passed an order for extention of lease on 7. 1. 1993, Annexure P-1. Subsequently, this order was challenged in an appeal by the petitioner society before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. The Commissioner Gwalior Division, gwalior held that the Collector or Mining Officer were not empowered to extend the lease. The Commissioner also found that Jandal Singh has not installed polishing machine over the mines, as such he was not eligible for extention of lease, therefore, the order extending the lease was cancelled. The action of the Collector auctioning the mine was challenged in Misc. Petition No. 180/93. This Court found that since the notification of auction has already been set aside by the Commissioner, Gwalior division, Gwalior, the petition has rendered infructuous. The action of the Collector auctioning the mine was challenged in Misc. Petition No. 180/93. This Court found that since the notification of auction has already been set aside by the Commissioner, Gwalior division, Gwalior, the petition has rendered infructuous. ( 3 ) AFTER the remand by the Commissioner, the application of Jandal Singh for extention of lease was rejected by the Additional Collector holding herein that Jandal singh has not installed cutting and polishing machine and recommended for grant of lease to the petitioner society. The State Government has granted lease to the petitioner. Jandal Singh filed an application for review under Rule 28 of the Madhya pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') before the State Government against the grant of lease to the petitioner society. However, copy of review application has not been filed by any of the parties in both the petitions. The State Government, vide its order dated 22. 11. 1995, Annexure P-15, rejected the application for review filed by Jandal Singh. After rejecting the application, State government also recalled the order dated 25. 7. 1995 and directed that a co-operative society be constituted consisting of local educated unemployed persons living below the poverty line, who should be as far as possible members of Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and backward classes, otherwise to the members of Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward class, who are below the poverty line, ( 4 ) THE contention of Shri J. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, is that this order is contrary to law. After rejecting the application for review, the State government exceeded its jurisdiction in recalling the order dated 25. 7. 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the policy framed by the Government, annexure P-1, itself provides in para 7. 2 that the first preference and allotment of mining lease should be given to a co-operative society of Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and backward classes and income of the members of the society should be less than Rs. 6. 000/- per year. He further submitted that the petitioner is a co-operative society registered under Section 9 of the Act. He also invited attention of the Court to the proviso of Section 9 of the Act and submitted that no other society for the same purpose having same interest can be registered in the area. 6. 000/- per year. He further submitted that the petitioner is a co-operative society registered under Section 9 of the Act. He also invited attention of the Court to the proviso of Section 9 of the Act and submitted that no other society for the same purpose having same interest can be registered in the area. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order recalling the order dated 25. 7. 1995 is without application of mind, arbitrary and contrary to law. Since the petitioner society consists of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes, whose annual income is less than Rs. 6,000/- per year, the lease was rightly granted to the petitioner society. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the order, Annexure P-15, no reason has been assigned (sic) finding has been recorded to demonstrate how and in what manner the order granting to extracting flat-stone lease from the mines requires to be reviewed. No reason has been assigned reviewing the order. Learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order and without application of mind. He submitted that the order, Annexure P-15, is arbitrary and every order, which is arbitrary and without application of mind, attracts the vice of mala fide. ( 6 ) THE State Government has filed its return and submitted that the petitioner society was not entitled for grant of lease. From the return of the State Government, the State has tried to substantiate the reasons for reviewing the order of lease. One of the grounds was that while granting lease the policy dated 8. 11. 1995 for grant of lease was not considered. The learned Counsel for the State also submitted that the annexures P-2 and P-3, filed by the petitioner in the petition themselves disclose that the grant of lease was improper. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is totally misconceived. The order of review does not disclose or narrate any fact which the respondents want to substitute through their return. The order, annexure P-15, so far as it cancels the lease granted to the petitioner on 25. 7. 1995 is bad and without application of mind. The contention of the respondents is that the reasons assigned in the return cannot be read with the order. This is not permissible. The order, annexure P-15, so far as it cancels the lease granted to the petitioner on 25. 7. 1995 is bad and without application of mind. The contention of the respondents is that the reasons assigned in the return cannot be read with the order. This is not permissible. This question has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 . The orders, Annexure P-15, cancelling the lease in favour of petitioner society cannot be allowed to stand, as no reason has been assigned by the authority for reviewing the earlier order. The order, Annexure P-15, cancelling the lease of the petitioner by review is set aside and the writ petition No. 142/96 is allowed with a direction to respondent to permit the petitioner to work on the quarry lease for extracting flag-stone. ( 8 ) SO far as writ petition No. 292/96 is concerned, the State Government and all the authorities have recorded a finding that the petitioner Jandal Singh has not installed polishing machine, therefore, he has no right of extention of lease. Therefore, the finding of fact does not warrant any interference in the writ petition. The writ petition No. 292/96 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. .