ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The common questions of law being involved in these three writ petitions they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 2489/2000 are delineated herein. 2. The facts as have been depicted are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and old concessionaire of the respondent No. 2, namely, the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease over an area of 21.252 hectares in village Degrahat, Taluk Rampur Baghelan, District Satna for extraction of lime stone a major mineral vide application dated 3-12- 1990. This area was thrown open by the Government of M.P. for grant of mining lease. The application of the petitioner was complete in all respects and he had filed all the documents as enjoined under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). During the pendency of the application the petitioner received a letter dated 29-9-1992 from the Government of Madhya Pradesh by which he was directed to remove the defects within a period of sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner received the notice on 14-10-1992. By the said notice he was required to file a valid clearance certificate, mining plan duly approved by I.B.M., affidavit showing that in the State of M.P. how many mining lease are granted in his favour, affidavit showing that how many applications for grant of mining lease are pending before the Government, the consent of Bhumiswami over the area in question, details of minerals and prospecting report under section 5(2) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for brevity 'the Act'), copy of the Khasra Panchashala and four copies of the map of the applied area. 3. According to the writ petitioner he filed the reply to the aforesaid notice on 18-11-1992 and annexed all the necessary documents along with the reply and pointed out that the mining plan is required to be prepared only after decision of the State Government in writing that they decided to grant the precise area to the petitioner. The petitioner, as putforth, was required to file the mining plan within a period of six months from the date of the communication of the aforesaid decision. The petitioner, as putforth, was required to file the mining plan within a period of six months from the date of the communication of the aforesaid decision. Though the petitioner had removed the defect, his application suffered from the deemed refiisal under Rule 24 of the Rules. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Central Government and the Central Government vide order dated 11-2-1993 quashed the order of deemed refusal and directed the State Government to dispose of the said application over an area of 52.49 acres on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner received a letter dated 25-5-1995 by which the application filed by him was rejected by the State Government on the ground that the application was incomplete and he had not shown any interest in removing the defects. The State Government in the same order granted the area of 62.570 hectares to the respondent No. 3 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government which include the area of the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 25-5-1995 has been brought on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing a revision before the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner had filed the documents and removed the defects vide reply dated 18-11-1992 and he was having preference over the respondent No. 3 as contemplated under section 11 (2) of the Act and the respondent No. 2 without obtaining the prior approval of the respondent No. 1 rejected the application which is in violation of the mandatory provision of the Act. The petitioner further pointed out that no opportunity of hearing was given as required under the Rules and no cogent reasons have been ascribed while rejecting the application of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 filed its comments to the revision petition. The petitioner filed the counter comments meeting the allegations made by the respondent No. 2. 4. It is putforth in the petition that the respondent No. 1 had rejected the revision on the ground that the approval of the Central Government had been taken on 4-1-1995 and hence, the requirement under the Act had been satisfied and on that basis it has upheld the order passed by the State Government. 5. 4. It is putforth in the petition that the respondent No. 1 had rejected the revision on the ground that the approval of the Central Government had been taken on 4-1-1995 and hence, the requirement under the Act had been satisfied and on that basis it has upheld the order passed by the State Government. 5. It is averred in the petition that the order passed by the Central Government suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as grant has been made in favour of the respondent No. 3 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government as envisaged under section 11(4) of the Act. It has also been putforth that the reasons have not been recorded and the concept of preference has totally been given a go by. It is also urged that the petitioner had removed all the defects but the State Government had erroneously come to the conclusion that the defects had not been removed. It has also been highlighted that the Central Government has committed a gross error by opining that the prior approval had already been given. It has also been highlighted that the application of the petitioner was prior in time and, therefore, it deserved preference under the Act and the same could not be over-ruled. With these averments the prayer has been made for issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-11-1999, Annexure P-8 and also the order dated 25-5-1995 by which the State Government had granted privilege in favour of the respondent No. 3. It is the further prayer of the petitioner to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant lease in favour of the petitioner over an area of 21.252 hectares (52.49 acres) as per his application. 6. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 contending, inter alia, the grounds urged in this writ petition are similar to W.P. No. 2488/2000. The counter affidavit filed in the said case has been relied upon in this case. It is putforth that vide Application dated 3-12-1990 the petitioner had sought for grant of mining lease for an area of 41.188 and the petitioner had also applied for grant of prospecting licence for an area admeasuring 21.252 hectares which falls within the area specified to be granted for mining lease. It is putforth that vide Application dated 3-12-1990 the petitioner had sought for grant of mining lease for an area of 41.188 and the petitioner had also applied for grant of prospecting licence for an area admeasuring 21.252 hectares which falls within the area specified to be granted for mining lease. It is putforth that the application filed by the petitioner was incomplete and there were numerous defects, in the said application. The petitioner was served a notice for rectification of defects. The petitioner in spite of rectifying the defects and completing the application in all respects had tried to justify his shortcomings. A reference has been made to Annexure P-2 to highlight that how the petitioner himself had admitted the errors. Non submission of the mining plan has been seriously opposed to by the respondent No. 2. It is further putforth that the petitioner has ignored the mandatory conditions for grant of mining lease. It is urged that the submission of the consent of the land owner in writing is a mandatory condition which ought to have been complied with by the petitioner. A reference has been made to section 5(2)(A) of the Act to support the action of the State Government. The order passed by the Central Government has been supported by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that, the said order is informed by the cogent reasons. It has also been urged that the preference claimed by the Petitioner is of no significance as the said application was incomplete, erroneous and suffered from irregularities. That apart, it is also putforth that the prior approval of the Central Government permitting the State Government was obtained and on that basis the findings have been recorded. 7. It is opposite to mention here that in W.P. No. 2488/2000 a return has been filed by the contesting respondent No. 3. It is putforth in the return that the pursuant to the M.P. Gazette dated 2-11-1990, 62.67 hectares of land was thrown open for extraction of lime stone and, therefore, the answering respondent made an application for grant of prospecting licence to the appropriate authority on 4-12-1990 along with relevant documents. The documents included the village map showing area applied for grant of prospecting licence, list of cadestral survey number in respect of area in question, annual report of the year 1988-89, list of directors and relevant affidavits. The documents included the village map showing area applied for grant of prospecting licence, list of cadestral survey number in respect of area in question, annual report of the year 1988-89, list of directors and relevant affidavits. The application was filed in respect of the land in which the minerals vested with the Government under Rule 22 of the Rules. The respondent No. 2 after being satisfied granted the prospecting licence in favour of the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 has proposed to establish a cement plan as the area was thrown open to the lime stone was suitable for establishing the cement plan. The licence was granted to the answering respondent after obtaining the approval of Central Government, under the provisions of sections 5(1) and 6(1 )(C) of the Act. After acceptance of the application for grant of prospecting licence the State Government issued the order granting the prospecting licence in favour of the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25-5-1995. In compliance of the grant order, the prospecting licence for 62.570 hectares was executed between the answering respondent and the appropriate authority of the State Government on 14-10-1995. It is highlighted that the prior approval had been obtained. Various other aspects have been highlighted to show that how the grant in favour of the respondent No. 3 is absolutely genuine and has been granted for establishing a plant by which the employment opportunities are provided. 8. I have heard Mr. M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel along with Mr. P.K. Jaiswal for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Akshaya Dharmadhikari for the respondent No. 3. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel, that the order passed by the revisional authority is absolutely bad in law inasmuch as the State Government while granting licence has not kept in view the concept of preference and has pointed out such facts which were not in existence. 10. The learned Government Advocate as well as Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, per contra, has submitted that the orders passed by the State Government as well as by the Central Government are absolutely justified and the petitioner cannot claim any preference. 10. The learned Government Advocate as well as Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, per contra, has submitted that the orders passed by the State Government as well as by the Central Government are absolutely justified and the petitioner cannot claim any preference. It has also been putforth by them that as prior approval of the Government has been obtained and special reasons have been recorded by the State Government, the order cannot be found fault with. 11. Before I proceed to deal with the factual scenario, it is apposite to refer section 11 (2) and (4) of the Act. The said provision reads as under: 1. Preferential right of certain person.-- XXX XXX (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later: Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applications as deem fit. XXXX XXX XXX (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may for any special reasons to be recorded and with the previous approval of the Central Government, grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. 12. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Dr. T. Nandagopal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1988 AP 199 wherein Jeevan Reddy, J. (as his Lordship then was) interpreting the said provision held as under: It is true that the minerals vest in the State Government; but the State Government cannot act arbitrarily. Under section 11 (4) the person who applies first is entitled to a preference, and if that preference is proposed to be overlooked by the State Government, it has to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government, besides recording special reasons for such overlooking. Under section 11 (4) the person who applies first is entitled to a preference, and if that preference is proposed to be overlooked by the State Government, it has to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government, besides recording special reasons for such overlooking. Unless the Central Government accords its prior approval for such overlooking the State Government is not competent to overlook the priority claim of the earlier applicant. In the other words, the prior approval of the Central Government is one of the conditions precedent for overlooking the priority claim of the earlier applicant. There is no question of Central Govt's prior approval being binding upon State Govt. As such, it could not be contended that the terms of the prior approval accorded by the Central Government are not binding upon the State Government, and similarly the converse argument that the terms of such prior approval are binding upon the State Government, must both be held to be misplaced. (quoted from the placitum) 13. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid pronouncement of law. Thus if there is a prior approval and reasons have been recorded by the State Government the concept of preference can be overlooked. In the case at hand the Central Government in paragraph 7 of the order has held as under: 7. These cases were heard on 9-12-1998. Both parties were present. Under Rule 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 the prior applicant has a preferential right for allotment of a prospecting licence or mining lease. However, under Rule 11(4), notwithstanding the provisions of 11(2), the State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, and with the prior approval of the Central Government, grant a licence/lease to a later applicant. This is what has happened in this case. The State Government has recorded its reasons, and prior approval of the Central Government has been taken vide 4/192/94-M-IV dated 4-1-1995. Therefore, the provisions of 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 have been satisfied and this Tribunal sees no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is consequently dismissed. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal that there has been no prior approval. The parties were present before the Central Government and it does not appear that they had raised the issue that there had been no prior approval. The revision is consequently dismissed. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal that there has been no prior approval. The parties were present before the Central Government and it does not appear that they had raised the issue that there had been no prior approval. They had not raised the issue that the State Government had not given cogent reasons. As a finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal that the State Government has recorded reasons and there had been prior approval, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart the State Government in the impugned order has indicated the reasons. Thus, the conditions precedent for overlooking the preference are satisfied and hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Central Government warranting interference. 15. Resultantly, the writ petitions, being devoid of substance, stand dismissed without any order as to costs.